Private Space vs. Public Space
September 22nd, 2006 by The Bosphorus
I wonder what the trouble was between this church and their local library? The San Fransico Chronical reports here. Did they get too happy, make too much noise, or did they bring in the snakes? Vipers always freak the librarians out. If the worshipers had been quiet Quakers, would that have made a difference?
The Contra Costa County government says,
“We think a library and a church are different things and should stay different,”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, stating,
“The county has a legitimate interest in … excluding meeting room activities that may interfere with the library’s primary function as a sanctuary for reading, writing and quiet contemplation,” and in preventing the room from being “transformed into an occasional house of worship,” Judge Richard Paez said in the majority opinion.
But a dissenting opinion brings an important point,
Judge Richard Tallman… in his dissenting opinion. “Separating religious worship from other religious speech inevitably leads to state entanglement in religion” and is beyond the government’s authority, he said.
What it boils down to, according to this article, is be careful how you say your speech (i.e. information) in a public space. There are differences in kinds of speech (information). Be careful, also, of who you gather with in a public space. There are differences in kinds of speech (information) spoken by various groups. It is telling that this has played out in a library where the presentation of information is hallowed. I wonder how effective Government will be as an abiter of information?
Wait a minute Caesar the government has always claimed ultimate authority on what may be said when, where and especially, how.
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:05 am
Far be it from me to ever intentionally agree with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but I think that they got this one right.
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:41 am
They probably didn’t pay a late fee or something.
Don’t mess with librarians.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:06 am
What harm did these worshipers do? The article relates that the court ruled on the kind of speech they expressed, not the effects of that speech. What exactly is the difference between their speech and that of another group like the Sierra Club which reportedly meets at that same library?
I don’t have a problem with my tax dollars supporting a public space that may be used by anybody. For example, I don’t agree with PETA, but I’m not opposed to them meeting at the library and spreading their propaganda, so long as the effects of their speech isn’t destructive, harmful, etc.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:10 am
Well, bos, there is the small matter of the US Constitution. It speaks quite clearly about the separation of church and state. About the Sierra Club and state, not so much.
The world history of entanglement between religion and state is a long and mostly sordid one. The founding fathers developed an allergy to this conflation, and enshrined their aversions in the document that frames our laws. Call me conservative, but I think both religion and the state are better served when they are kept as far apart as possible.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:25 am
I dunno Joel, I think the purely secular thing to do would be to treat this group, while it is religious, just like any other group of people. As long as they’re not converting library patrons or trying to get treatment the sierra club doesn’t get, and as long as I can go in there and book the room for a subgenius devival or something, then I say do it.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:34 am
This is the part of the article that comes closest to explaining it, as I see it:
“But Deputy County Counsel Kelly Flanagan said the county was concerned that allowing prayer services in a public building would amount to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.”
Does any organization that walks in the library door automatically have a right to use the property? Is the library not at their own discretion as to who to loan out the space to?
How do the public meeting rooms at your library work, Bos?
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Well, lets see. Then putting up a plaque with the 10 commandments in a courtroom is no different than, say, putting up a portrate of the governor? Reading the Lord’s Prayer over the PA system before a public high school football game is no different than, say, playing the Star Spangled Banner?
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:00 pm
I fail to see the correlation between your points, Joel, other than the fact that they’re all loosely associated with religion and goverment. This line of thought, taken to a logical conclusion, ends up with federal employees working Christmas. Theres a logical line in the sand between being secular, and being atheistic.
Religious dogma being displayed in courthouses, schools, and post offices implies that the .gov has chosen one side over the other (unless they adorn the place with symbols of every possible religion, which is silly, because some of the tribal dieties are represented by elephant bones and stuff, and thats hard to come by).
Allowing a religious group to quietly meet in a closed meeting room is something else. As long as they’re not setting fires, bugging people, making undue noise, etc, its no differnt than an elks club meeting.
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:09 pm
“This line of thought, taken to a logical conclusion, ends up with federal employees working Christmas.”
I frankly don’t have any problem with eliminating the federal celebration of Christmas.
“Theres a logical line in the sand between being secular, and being atheistic.”
Indeed. Could you point out that line? Or is this a line only true believers can see?
“Allowing a religious group to quietly meet in a closed meeting room is something else.”
I don’t agree. If a religious group wants to hold a meeting, that’s one thing. But that’s not what the article says. It says they were conducting a religious service. I don’t think my tax money should be spent providing part-time church facilities to religions. I think we ought to privatize religion.
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:39 pm
AT, GAC you all are catching my drift here. This isn’t a question of government sanctioning of a religion. Tax dollars in this case are spent on a public meeting space. Who’s the gov to say what those people can and cannot do so long as the public isn’t endangered or inconvenience in some exceptional way.
I’m the person at my lib who’s responsible for scheduling the meeting room. This seems to be a library policy issue that’s gotten screwed up. To the best of my memory, KCPLS would charge these folks a rental fee. I don’t have the policy in front of me, so I’m not speaking in any official manner here.
So, Joel. What’s the difference between a “religious service” and a “religious meeting”?
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Pick and choose them arguments, chief. Point of the conversation, if I may steer it back in that direction before I discuss the little Joel jabs here, is that a meeting room, in a public library, is considered off limits to public citizens.
With my agnosti-vision turned on, I don’t see a difference between a meeting (say, a self help group) and a religious meeting. Hellfire man, I bet they’d let AA meet there, and its damn near the same thing.
Now, you’re preaching to the choir with regards to privatizing religion, property taxes on churches, etc, rock on. I’m willing to play devils advocate, because I do enjoy that, but it’d be hard for me to argue against it seriously.
Regarding the line, seems to me that posting dogma in a courthouse is .gov actively promoting a religion. Not stopping religious peeps from meeting is passively ignoring religion.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:39 pm
“So, Joel. What’s the difference between a “religious service†and a “religious meetingâ€?”
I don’t know that there is a difference. I wouldn’t have said there was one. I was making a distinction between a meeting held by a religious group as distinct from a worship service held by a religious group. For example, when I was in the CYO, we might agree to meet down at the civic center to shoot a little pool. That was and should be allowed. Had we decided to hold mass there, that shouldn’t have been allowed. It wasn’t an experiment we tried, so I can’t be sure, but I suspect that it wouldn’t have been allowed then.
“Regarding the line, seems to me that posting dogma in a courthouse is .gov actively promoting a religion. Not stopping religious peeps from meeting is passively ignoring religion.”
What about if somebody posts their own copy of the 10 commandments in a courthouse? Would it be passively ignoring religion to just leave it there?
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:43 pm
AT, you lost me. “Pick and choose them arguments,” what do you mean?
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Bos, you got caught in the crossfire of me taking 20 minutes to type a post (its busy at work). I didn’t see your response pop in. Consider it payback for dropping a post 2 minutes after mine this morning!
I think arguing the difference between a religious service, and religious meeting is moot. Its a gathering of people for some purpose or another. I agree with Bos, and don’t think its his place to break up a peaceful gathering of people, unless they’re breaking some sort of ordinance.
Joel, you tell me, what if somebody posts their copy of the big 10 in a courthouse?
I’d say it’d be same thing that’d happen if I posted an ad for the ‘tumor in the courthouse, it’d get thrown away.
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:18 pm
AT, didn’t realize you’d just published yours when I sent mine up.
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:25 pm
“I’d say it’d be same thing that’d happen if I posted an ad for the ‘tumor in the courthouse, it’d get thrown away.”
Heh. I’d say that depends on which courthouse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore
September 22nd, 2006 at 6:58 pm
“So, Joel. What’s the difference between a “religious service†and a “religious meetingâ€?â€
I’ve certainly been to a bunch of both. A religious service is much louder than a religious meeting.
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:50 pm
Yeah, Joel, I remember ol Roy. But, he’s one extreme example, and if I recall, (without looking at the page), he was censured by the Alabama legal whatnots because of his extreme case. He was trying to get elected, simple as that.
I oughta sneak subliminal AT ads in the AC courthouse…
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:57 pm
He has *lots* of supporters, AT. I, for one, am not complacent about the fascist tendencies of my fellow Americans. Maybe its an old fart thing. Maybe it’s the Jewish heritage. But I like the separation of church and state. I just do.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:14 pm
My problem with the situation is not that the library is the “state.” My problem is that I understand the difference between a religious meeting and a worship service. A religious meeting can and should(IMO) be a pretty tame event. A worship service is an opportunity for folks to cut loose and PRAISE THE LORD. Loudy. Folks in a library shouldn’t have to put up with that. In exactly the same way that I would appreciate the local library not invite a gay pride parade to march through the stacks while I’m there. Shhhh.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:23 pm
You’ve obviously not been to a synagogue. Or a mass. Or a friends meeting. Or a Unitarian service. Or a Mormon temple. Or a Russian Orthodox church service.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:27 pm
…and the point?
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Well, daco, I’ll type this slowly.
You posted: “A worship service is an opportunity for folks to cut loose and PRAISE THE LORD. Loudy”
I posted a list of houses of worship in which worship services occur. I’ve been to many of these places, and know practitioners of the rest of these faiths. None of them are faiths in which folks “cut loose and PRAISE THE LORD. Loudy” None.
I guess this point would be hard to grasp if one believed that fundamentalist Protestantism, in which noisy services are prized, is the faith of America.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Sorry Joel if the implication is that the religious services that you mentioned are not loud….”Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries” really doesn’t sound like a Jewish, Catholic, Quaker, Unitarian, Morman of Russian Orthodox group. Hell bubba they don’t even sound Muslim.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Ah, I get it. So in your lexicon “A worship service” is equivalent to â€Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries.” Guess the rest of what those so-called religions call worship services fall somewhat short of the definition of “A worship service” in your mind.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Nice try Joel, but not even close.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:53 pm
And your point . . .
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:57 pm
Oh no point really. Just not going to be baited into one of your angry, bad day or too much wine, arguments.
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:01 pm
“Oh no point really.”
I see.
Can’t argue with someone whose posts are pointless.
September 23rd, 2006 at 8:42 am
Point goes to Daco - since this case is about â€Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries.â€.
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:30 am
It’s your blog, AT.
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:32 am
No way man, its ‘our’ blog.
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:30 am
…A rousing chorus of “The More We Get Together…” everybody.
You know, Daco, that’s a pretty good argument for no worship in the library. Now that’s a slogan that cracks me up, “no worship in the Library”.