A federal court has ruled that the Contra Costa library must allow a local Christian ministry to use its facilities. The library’s policy had been to disallow all religious services and did not discriminate against just Christian services. The Alliance Defense Fund carried on about how it was discrimination against Christians and that Christians have a First Amendment right as well. The ADF, as usual, is about promoting Christianity and not about promiting equality for all religions. They also failed to note, that the library’s policy excluded all religions from having religious services in the property.
You can read a biased report in the California Catholic Daily HERE.
Posted by Blair Scott
I’m completely stunned by this. A federal court? This wasn’t some district court that completely violated the Separation of Church and State, this was a FEDERAL court.
Absolutely insane.
I left a note there on that catholic website, and lets see if they are stupid enough to prevent me from posting. If they do so, then they are guilty of the exact same thing that they sued the library for, and that will be just another story to add to my collection of christian hypocrisy.
I hope that library becomes overrun with all kinds of religions demanding equal use of their facilities – just so these ridiculous christians can have a physical example of why the establishment clause is necessary.
Please provide the link to the unbiased report.
He did…?
Perhaps I’m missing something, but I feel like the court made the correct decision. The library/government doesn’t have to endorse anything to allow a meeting in their facility, and I feel like a library would be a convenient place to meet with fellow atheists and do some Bible bashing as well.
I’d like to see some religious groups get shit on for various reasons, but they aren’t hurting anything here. It seems to me that were just attacking every little bit of religion because we can. Don’t stoop to that level, let them be, even if they don’t offer us the same courtesy.
The christians got it completely ass backwards is what the problem is. They are claiming that their free speech has been violated, even though the library was preventing any denomination from using their building. They only care about free speech up to the point that it effects themselves, which is absolutely hypocritical. If they actually cared about free speech then they should have supported the rights of other religious groups to use the library as much as they should. But of course you’ll never see that coming from the christians.
I agree completely, hypocrisy runs wild within religion, but this particular case seems harmless. It isn’t favoring any denomination/religion/non-religion- although it seems these particular Christians will take advantage of it more.
It has more to do how christians see themselves are more important then other denominations, that they deserve more rights then others. It isn’t about how the library stopped them from using their building, it is about this issue.
Harmless? Let’s see. The dominant religion makes the most requests for use of the library facilities and therefore the dominant religion is defacto favored by the state. This decision was wrong, dangerous and stupid.
By that logic, the state is favoring the dominant religion by simply allowing any religious services at all.
You will have to explain that last sentence. I can’t determine what your point is.
I think I understand your point, but this is like saying that the government is favoring the majority simply because there are more of them. More white people use libraries than black people, but this does not mean that the government is favoring white people.
Will more Christians use the library as a meeting spot than atheists? Absolutely, but Atheists still have the option, so I don’t see how anyone is favored.
No, this is like saying that this is an issue about the Separation of Church and State. Your racial analogy is really really bad. Separation of Race and State (whatever that could possibly be) is not enshrined in the US Constitution.
Our government should not be – and is CONSTITUTIONALLY restricted in this respect – involved with supporting religion at all. The Founders were smart enough to know that this was essential and smart enough to know that supporting religion based on public support is equally intolerable.
Maybe now you will understand why Separation of Church and State is vital and that this is an example of a breach of The Wall that should not be tolerated.
Separation of church and state is extremely vital, I don’t believe this violates the first amendment.
My understanding is that any group could use the meeting rooms as long as they were not holding religious (or atheistic I would assume) meetings. This would mean that the library was discriminating based on religious reasons wouldn’t it?
The library is not encouraging Christianity by letting them meet. This is allowing the religious, not favoring them. Christians aren’t wrong about EVERYTHING purely because they’re Christian, the government isn’t necessarily supporting religion by giving them a freedom.
Explain to me what the court has done that favors religion or violates separation of church and state.
What part of SEPARATION do you not understand?
Apparently I’m blind to the obvious constitutional mix up here, so just explain to me how the government is favoring the religious.
What you fail to understand is that it is not about whether “favoritism” is overtly at work or not. You persist in assuming and stating that it is! It is not. It is about SEPARATION.
I apologize, I was simply using your word (favored) not mine.
Since you’ve changed your mind and religion is no longer favored, but rather only entangled with the government, could you explain the connection. How is religious use of the library in any way a violation of separation? Once again I cannot seem to connect the dots.
I didn’t change my mind. You are just having trouble following a simple argument. I stated clearly that government would be picking a defacto favorite by allowing churches this kind of access. That is against the establishment clause AND a violation of the separation of church and state. Clear enough?
How many times do I have to make my point until it registers with you? If a church is taking care of business in a government building then the government is supporting that church. Simple enough?
Free speech ‘as long as you agree with me’ isn’t free speech. It’s totalitarianism. Many contributors in to this blog are enemies of free speech.
Were this an issue of free speech you might have a point. Do you want to back up your assertion with a little more explanation?
This is an issue of free speech. And no I am not going to debate my statement with you. Thanks for asking.
I’m not even asking for a debate, I’m asking that you back up your statements with explanation and, I don’t know, maybe some logic instead of making an unsubstantiated claim that does nothing except expose you as being an ineffectual troll. And you’re welcome, sunshine.
Pinko,
What part of free speech don’t you understand?
I don’t see this as a matter of free speech, I see it as an infringement of the establishment clause. No one is trying to keep these people from expressing their belief and to try to warp the issue to encompass that is, in my opinion, dishonest. The issue was that a religious group wanted to gather in a publicly funded institution which did not allow religious assembly of any kind to utilize the facility. It’s easy to cower to the assertion that this somehow has something to do with free speech, but if you remove emotion from the equation its obviously an establishment issue.
So in response to your question – I think I understand free speech pretty well, I just don’t understand the insistence of bringing up free speech when that has nothing to do with this post.
Free speech? Give me a break. The government is under no obligation to provide you with a soapbox on which to speak. As a matter of fact the First Amendment limits the government in doing so when the speech is religious.
what, you finally said something sensible (altho irrelevant to this case). Contra Costa County was not under any obligation to provide free meeting rooms to anybody. But they did, and so they are obligated to provide those facilities equally to everybody.
What does that have to do with the price of soybeans in Kowloon? No government was holding these religious services. A group of private citizens was.
And Yes, this is a free speech issue. The courts have long ago extended the concept of free speech to include any kind of expression. A religious service is a kind of expression.
No they aren’t if it violates the first amendment. Which it does. How can this point possibly escape you?
What- please specify exactly how the first amendment has been mutilated here. No group is favored (unless you want to change your mind again), no group’s rights are being trampled, and to me it seems like equal footing for all belief or disbelief systems.
To “Show Me Some PROOF”
Libraries have a rule that any meetings held there must allow anyone and everyone to attend that wish to attend.
I use to have Atheists meetings in the Phoenix downtown library and once in a while religious kooks would walk in and attempt to convert us. I could not ask them to leave; I would not have been allowed to continue having meetings there. Twice the kooks got hostile and I was able to get a guard to remove them. The rest of the times we just had to ignore them and continue our meetings with them making stupid statements through out the meetings.
But, you are correct about libraries are required to allow them to meet. However, the one xtian group that use to meet at the library would have their “bouncer” escort anyone disagreeing with them out of the auditorium that they used every week. The library never threaten to refuse them the room. Also no one else was ever allowed to get that big room. It was theirs every Sunday. This is a problem when a government facility can be used by religious groups. The person in charge can play favoritism and it is difficult to put a stop to it.
The possibility for abuse is certainly there, and the religious will undoubtedly capitalize, this much I agree on. I understand that atheists, like many minorities, are at a disadvantage and will be pushed around in cases such as this. I just dislike the idea of litigation in this case.
I realize that little bits of religion are not petty, but it just seems to me there are countless cases of religious groups flat out breaking the law, and we should be attacking those rather than this case of a few superstitious clowns washing each others feet at a library. Let them waste their own time.
Let them “waste their own time” on their own dime.
I am so repulsed by religion….
A little OT here but the biggest thing happening on the planet by far is Iran….the holy rollers controlling Iran just insulted the young information agers protesting in Iran by stating that the west incited them, insinuating they are incapable of free thought….this will most absolutely back fire…fu religion….get out of our public lives…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_iran_election
I wouldn’t say by far, North Korea has stepped up their game as well.
OT and not even related to religion, but it turns out the SC Governor, who will likely be a frontrunner for the dumb presidential candidate in 2012, was actually in Argentina for 5 days without telling anyone.
This is the jackass refusing federal money and throwing my college tuition through the roof by cutting over $75 million from the budget of my school alone. The Republican party baffles me.
I stand corrected, he must have referenced God 20 times in his press conference about family values.
He was in Argentina cheating on his wife. The news just broke. Why is it that the party of family values are always the ones caught with their pants down?
Godless did you notice that he said he was cheating with a “person” or “friend” from Argentina about 6 times before he came out and said she was a woman. I was about to explode if it was a homosexual affair, would have been glorious.
Either way I don’t think this has has great deal to do with politics, obviously Clinton messed up as well, but the family values and “sanctity of marriage” charade has to stop if they’re gonna keep up this trash.
They certainly aren’t the party of “no” when it comes to whipping it out of their pants. Me luvs those good ol’ Republican christian family values. LOL
he is better than that bag of filth ted kennedy who let a girl drown.
I say by far because whats happening in Iran involves stupid religion that affects way more people….North Korea is about one lunatic in charge that just has to die…one dead deranged dictator will change that country…unlike Iraq where one hung dictator didnt change anything….so…whats happening in Iran is not about one dead dumb mother…its about monotheism being kicked out of our public lives….its about the youth in Iran surfing the net and developing their own ideas based on reality and not based on silly superstition…I may be to optimistic….we will see…..
suck it religion
Charlie
I think you are being too optimistic. I think the events of the past couple weeks has little to do with the Iranians turning from religion and has more to do with the desire of political elements in the US and Israel to weaken Iran in general. There is no doubt that our media is fomenting unrest in Iran. Just look at the coverage of this event compared to that of the recent Israeli attack on Gaza.
More neocon histrionics!
Meanwhile the mess we have made of Iraq and its continuing human toll has fallen off the front pages of the US news media. But there is no escaping the mess we made and soon, very soon, America will begin to see the price of its meddling.
The Iranian people are struggling for their political freedom. The only religious undertones are from the dictatorship of the ayatollahs. Obama is doing the right thing in keeping out of it. That leaves the Iranians free to oppose their government without endangering their national security.
I wouldn’t be surprized to hear of some covert interference, say from the CIA. But that would probably be on the side of the government. A brutal, fanatical dictatorship makes a lot more convenient scapegoat than a popularly elected government.
notsofast i agree obama is right i just hope the zionist traitors in this country don’t force his hand.
It makes me crazy when I hear people call for American intervention in Iran. Way to not learn from your mistakes, America.
And how strange that the two most vocal opponents of intervention are Obama and Ron Paul. This along with the bill Paul is pushing that calls for an audit of the fed make me really like that wacky Libertarian man.
Like I said before on another post, christians just want to make sure that they sit at the head of the table. Most of them don’t have the balls to come out and say they want a theocracy. Christians don’t mind if other religions, but not the godless, have a seat at the table, they just want it to be understood that they have the final say and are the only ones that really count. WASPs unite!
I think we do under estimate the new age we are in….and knowing that there are godless in Iran is enough for me to be optimistic….
through the information age people will see the similarities we have when crossing culture and at the same time seeing how religion only provides reason for not only diversity but backward thinking, silly superstitious obsurdity…..no answers for today….just a promise of something better in an after life….Fuck You to those that hold power over people based on exaggerated and very unverifiable claims….
hopefully these dumb ideas will die before science allows us to live much longer…
I’m optimistic as well, simply because it is clear that many in Iran and other Middle Eastern countries are discovering that they have other options, and realizing that America isn’t a land of evil, and freedom doesn’t have connections with the devil.
It might get ugly over there, but in a few years I believe there will be significant progress.
The library thing doesn’t bother me at all, religious groups should be able to sign up for and use the public library at will. As long as the access is granted equally, the courts have consistently rules that access given to secular groups must also be given to religious groups, regardless of size.
However, if this bothers you, you should really look into the evangelism that takes place in our schools. The “Good News Club” meets on school campuses in elementary schools, hands out flyers, and recruits children as young as Kindergarten for their after-school gatherings. They are supposed to be lead by children (with adults being allowed to attend), but the adults that I ran into picking up my daughter from school were clearly in charge, and recruiting like crazy. I over heard one woman say “The younger the better, then they’re more likely to stay in the club.” I just about hurled.
Janus Grayden, Asemodeus, what, et al:
You guys have never talked to a lawyer about the First Amendment, have you?
I tried to explain this on an earlier thread: The government has no business butting into religious affairs at all. The constitution does not support favoritism, it supports equality. Specifically, as that applies to religion, it means no government agency may define what is or is not religious.
A sensible agency will not use words like “religion” or “religious” in it’s directives at all. It will confine it’s restrictions to legitimate secular concerns like excessive noise, the sickening odor of incense wafting thru the building, snakes slithering around on the floor, etc.
This federal judge has done nothing but repeat what every federal judge has said who ever handled a case under the Lemon Test.
Sorry but under the three-part Lemon test this judge made the wrong decision on at least one and perhaps all three parts.
http://www.usconstitution.net/lemon.html
The county provided free meeting rooms in it’s library for various groups in the community to use, for their various purposes. Are you saying this was not a secular purpose?
The library board denied a religious group this right, which they were allowing to other groups. Can you imagine a secular purpose for this discrimination?
The library board was clearly inhibiting this religion, by denying it a valuable service that was readily available to others in the community. Hw do you suppose the judge was wrong on this?
The library board was taking it upon itself to define, at it’s own “discretion”, what meetings violated it’s anti-religious-service policy and which did not. In other words, the library decided what was a religion and what was not. Do you think this was not an excessive government entanglement with religion?
NSF
Um. Duh.
The were denying a user they were denying a use. Big difference!
The government is not denying religious users access they were denying religious use access.
In what bizzaro world does limiting interaction become entanglement?
The were denying a user they were denying a use. -> They were not denying a user. They were denying a use.
In what bizarro world does refusing a constitutional right become “limiting interaction”?
What constitutional right was violated?
NSF
Does this sound like a secular use to you?
San Jose Mercury News
No difference at all — between your argument and the one the homophobes use against gay marriage.
The right to equal access to a government service offered to the general public.
Who cares?
The principle is that the government can’t hold one religion above another. Seeing as how this library is being forced to do just that, I would say that constitutes a violation of Church and State. The library originally held all religions equally in their use of the public space, in that it simply didn’t allow it.
I have no problem with religious activities being conducted on public property, but only if any religion that wants to gets the same treatment. In this case, the Christians involved are forcing preferential treatment and that’s where I draw the line. Their superstition isn’t any better than anyone else’s.
How is the library being forced to hold one religion against another? I must have missed that in the news stories I read.
Where on earth did anyone say that the right was granted only to this group? Anyone can use it and they can talk about Zeus, Jesus, or The Church of the Fonz. That’s equal and everyone can express their religion freely.
ShowMe
You are a moron.
ShowMe
My apology for the last comment.
I don’t care about the comment, call me what you’d like. But seriously- what I previously said was 100% true. ANYONE can use this room, and talk about whatever gods or lack thereof they’d like. The religious “services” bother me, but it’s still a ruling that grants equality.
The establishment clause establishes inequality where religion is concerned so equality is irrelevant. Is it simply impossible by your standard for the government to run afoul of the establishment clause?
I’m calling you on that one, Proof.
If equality was the only thing that mattered to you, then it would have been fine that all religions were all equally unable to use the space.
The fact is, Christians had no right to complain about the ruling in order to use the space for themselves, as there was no breach of policy on the part of the library. The intent of their complaint was solely to strong-arm the library into letting them use their space for religious purposes.
How is that in any way acceptable?
Hey, NeoWolfe is back. You don’t have to try so hard to be unreasonable anymore.
Equality is not the only thing that matters to me, but it is certainly a relevant idea to the text “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” I do believe you are right, the original policy of the library grants equality and favors neither the religious or non-religious, but the policy to be enforced by the court will grant equality as well.
I believe the reason the ruling went the way the did is “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The thought there is that the library was forbidding the use of the room based on religious exercise.
If you read the main article, it discusses the entanglement issue, and that library officials should not be determining what constitutes religious services.
I certainly see the claim that this group was strong arming and I don’t like it any more than you two, but they did have a small leg to stand on and it held up- I’d like to see atheists suing over issues in which the religious are completely out of line- and there are many.
Granted, but how is it entanglement to say that something isn’t a religious service? That’s absurd.
If that was the case, how could a definitive Separation of Church and State even exist? If public officials can’t determine what is or isn’t religious service, then I should claim that my entire life is my free expression of my religious beliefs. Everything I purchase would be a tax write-off and who are they to tell me it’s not? I’ll sue them for being entangled in religious affairs.
That’s an extreme example, but appropriate. Of course public officials have the right to determine what constitutes religious service. That’s the only possible way for it to be enforced.
There’s absolutely no grounds for the church to claim they were being discriminated against. That clearly was not the case.
The key there is LIBRARY OFFICIALS not determining what is or is not religious. Legislators should be all over it. Not trying to split hairs, and I see how legislators could be seen as entangling as well based on that view- I was just stating how the court justified its decision.
NotSoFast
Really. Cite the law. The US Consitution is not about equality it is about separation. Geez!
Learn to read.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Lame.
You are making a fool of yourself. Shut up and go get yourself a legal education.
Think again.
I’ll ask again. Show me where the US Constitution says that one religion must not be favored over another by the government. That’s what I asked of you. Of course, it is not there because favoritism is not the issue that the constitution deals with in the first amendment. Separation is. The phrase “separation of church and state” rather than the phrase “favoritism of church by state” is part of our American lexicon for good reason.
I had no idea you were so utterly ignorant, misinformed, and illogical about church/state relations. IIRC, you once said you’re a member of the ACLU. Don’t you ever read the tons of material they send out to their members? Have you never read the constitution, or important court decisions about church/state, or even news accounts about them?
Why do you think the First amendment prohibits establishment of religion or prohibiting it’s free exercize? It’s to prevent the government from showing favoritism to people of any religious category.
The same with Article 6 of the constitution: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
And the 14th Amendment: “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
NSF
Although showing favoritism toward a particular religion or religions is in conflict with the First Amendment – as I have already argued – favoritism is not the focus of the first amendment. Separation is.
NSF
If the US government decided to fund all church operations in a fair manner (to be established) do you think that such law would run afoul of the First Amendment?
Where the hell did you get that notion?
I certainly do. As does every sane person on this planet. What do you folks on BizarroWorld think about it?
So what you are saying is that favoritism is not the central issue because in the situation I stated there would be none. Checkmate.
Care to play again?
I believe it said something in there about freedom of assembly as well. The first amendment doesn’t JUST kick gods out of government, it also protects everyone’s rights.
I should add that I’m not implying that the first amendment grants freedom to assemble in publicly funded buildings- my reasoning for allowing their assembly is based purely in not “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
The government is under no obligation to furnish the religious with meeting places and not doing so is not an example of “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. They are free to practice their religion on their own dime.
They’re under no obligation to provide a group of Michael Crichton fans with a room to sit down and discuss a novel either, but they’re doing it. Why do they get to tell a different group that they can’t use a room because their choice piece of fiction is the Bible?
Because it is religion and the treatment of religion has a special place in our constitution. And for good reason.
You seem to be having difficulty understanding that the government is obligated to treat the users of government services equally but the government is not obligated to treat the uses equally.
Alright what, you’re obviously not bending on this one, but where do you draw the line of USE? Can religious people go into a library? Can they say Jesus in a library? Can they read a Bible in a library? Can they pray? Can they have a discussion about their religions history? Can they do an objective Bible study (if there were such a thing)?
What about atheists? Can we have a book discussion about the God Delusion? It seems to me that your interpretation of the law would not allow us to mention religion in a public building
ShowMe
Are you intentionally being moronic? The line is drawn by the First Amendment and subsequent precendent and embodied in the The Lemon Test.
Holy crap man.
What I’m not being moronic at all. I know exactly where I would draw the line here based on the lemon test. It would be that the government should ignore the religious aspect altogether- that is not to say that they should allow religion to be pushed by anyone, but they should allow those who chose to meet in their facility to discuss whatever they’d like. If they would like to have a mass there, it’s a different story- if they’re trying to do that please point it out to me.
I’m simply playing devils advocate because I can’t seem to justify exclusion of the religious in my own mind. I understand the idea of precedents and that anything we can stack on top of the wall of separation is good, but I feel that these people are harmless in meeting at a public building, and allowing them to do so doesn’t necessarily violate the first amendment and/or lemon test.
The inner libertarian in me says let it go. Hell, go have atheistic or Buddhist meetings at your local library and it all evens out.
Maybe you didn’t see this earlier post of mine:
San Jose Mercury News
What I apologize I missed this excerpt earlier, I’ll blame that on the format. It changes my view of it, but I’m still hesitant to completely criticize the ruling because I don’t feel that the court is playing favorites and because of the entanglement issue I just touched on.
I’ll ask you the same question I asked of NSF. In what bizzaro world does the cessation of interaction with something become entanglement with said thing? Weird. Very weird.
From the article- I disagree with the interpretation of Jefferson’s wall, it was meant to work both ways, and to keep the government from making reasonless decisions.
I just don’t think there is a fine enough line that can be drawn based on the lemon test and 1st amendment. And I feel a group should be able to discuss the God Delusion in a public library, and therefore we’d have to allow a Bible study to justify such a thing. I’m not trying to say that atheism is a religion, but for this purpose it will certainly be treated as such.
ShowMe
Are you still arguing that this case was decided in a manner consistent with the Establishment Clause and The Lemon Test? If so then you are intentionally disregarding the nonsecular use of this library by this group and focusing instead on who was using it. Which is what I would guess that this misguided judge did.
If you are no longer making that argument but have instead moved on to some hypothetical case then I would appreciate your telling us so. I would also appreciate your telling us what we are to assume is happening in the library in this hypothetical case.
For the sake of ending this drawn out discussion I’ll just say exactly what I believe to be acceptable. Any person should be able to use this library room to talk about whatever they please. (Reading/discussing religion or the bible are all acceptable, just are discussions of atheism) Religious ceremonies (The Eucharist, Baptisms, etc.) should not be allowed anywhere on public property.
I was referring to this case, but trying to give an example of how it could be used as a precedent later on. The issue arises at where to legally draw the line. From a secular standpoint, sharing the Eucharist is nothing more than a discussion with a snack, and I don’t know what could be used as an objective test of what is/isn’t a religious ceremony.
As for the user/use issue, the article makes it seem as if the group itself (not the individual people) was banned from meeting at the library. The library should be able to say your group can do X but not Y rather than saying you cannot meet here as a group entirely.
OK, here’s my $.02 on everything that’s been mentioned here:
First of all, this judge has shown his own bias with this ruling. There’s a massive gray area when it comes to the 1st amendment, but my opinion is that no one told these people to shut up. they can speak anywhere else they like, as long as tax dollars do not help fund it. If it’s a public library, then I assume tax dollars built it, pays the utilities, the librarians and buys the books.
Infringement on the establishment clause. It’s about the moolah.
On Iran, North Korea, and the comparison of the two: apples and oranges. Kim Jong Il is a spoiled child throwing a tantrum to get attention.
Only problem is he’s a spoiled child with a million man army and some nukes.
Iran is an internal spat that spilled out into the public. Mousavi was one of the original revolutionaries from 1979, and a former prime minister under the current system. Now, he has appeared as a reformer, and has the backing of a former president that did open relations with Clinton. Khatami, I think his name was.
We can’t assume that the thousands of protesters in Iran are ready to renounce Shiism, but they definitely are sick of the repressive nature of the Supreme council and their puppet Ahmedimejad. Shia Islam is much more monarchical, and the schism that created the two sects was over who should be the leader of the religion and the state. Islam preaches that only religious figures should control government because it’s the only way to curb corruption.
And we all know how effective THAT is.
They stole that election, and it was to protect their power within the country. I feel for them, but I doubt we see another 1979 all over again. Not yet, anyway.
It should also be noted that Islamic (sharia) law states that those who are atheists or renounce Islam after they were once a muslim should be put to death. I’d also add that many Islamists were allies of Hitler during world war 2.
No, it’s not about the moolah. Religious people pay taxes too, you know. This is a public library. It’s there to serve everybody in the community.
so what? The establishment clause was crafted to protect the minority, so they could not be bullied by any sect.
Which is exactly what is happening here. Doesn’t matter if it’s pennies. It’s tax dollars. Once it enters government coffers, it’s off limits to religious organizations.
Why is everybody here being so dense about this?
Nobody is talking about raiding the government coffers to give religious organizations money. It’s about public access to public services.
Dense? It’s not about public access to public services and it wont be after you have said so another ten times. The government is within its right to restrict the use of public services as long as it does so based on the use rather than the user (and in some cases even then).
Haven’t you ever heard of constitutional rights? Government discretion ends where people’s rights begin.
What?
Public access to public services doesn’t mean they’re fair game for religious purposes.
That’s like saying that since it’s public property you can do anything you want on it. Certainly performing pagan blood rituals in that space would be contested by people and rightly so. People who don’t believe in those rituals would be put off by them being performed in a public space, as opposed to somewhere more appropriate, like their own meeting space.
If a library could not control what groups meet at the library and what the content is, then any group whatsoever should be able to meet at this library and for any purpose. What if a group of people from the KKK, or neo-nazi, or you fill in the blank, wanted an equal opportunity to use the facilities? What right would the library have in excluding anyone whatsoever?
You weren’t aware that the KKK, neo-nazis, NAMBLA, or you fill in the blank, already have this right? Where have you been?
I just can’t see the local library allowing a meeting of KKK, neo-nazis, or NAMBLA if these groups actually identified who they were. There would be outrage and picketing of the library in this area if such meetings were to become public knowledge.
dw says:
Were you around when the klan marched in a parade thru a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, Illinois, where many of the residents were Holocaust survivors?
The ACLU lost a big chunk of it’s membership over that. Freedom is not free!
Freedom has never been free. I know of the march you speak of, vaguely.
Sometimes it seems that to maintain freedom we have to also take risks that might endanger it to provide freedom for all. Almost to the point of bending over backwards.
I think it’s quite clear that I would love to see religious following plummet like the stock market last year, but that should happen because of reason, education, and new scientific knowledge- not because atheists throw litigation at every delusioned creature on the planet.
I really feel like a lot of people on here have gotten so caught up in despising the myth man Jesus Christ that you’re turning into Phreedm, picking the cookie cutter choice that is the most anti-god as opposed to the most rational and fair.
A huge part of the atheist movement is going to be convincing the JCCs out there that atheists don’t eat children and we’re not bad people- suing the pants off Jesus is counter productive in this department. If they’re violating our rights our commiting serious, harmful crimes- then by all means take them to court. Otherwise, live and let live- take a page out of the Bible that they took from the religions before them- treat others with the respect you’d like in return- this means let them sit in a library and pray all they want, it isn’t hurting any of us.
What is rational and fair is different for everyone. What is rational depends upon the premises used. What is fair depends upon experience and perspective. Protect your rights or lose them by attrition. It’s your choice.
Or as Thomas Jefferson put it: It doesn’t matter if my neighbor believes in one god, twenty gods, or no god. It neither breaks my leg or picks my pocket.
Jefferson was mistaken. They found many ways to pick our pocket.
Non profit status? Hello?
the library is peanuts guys.Dennis Blair director of national intelligence said in counterpunch on june 23 that he is starting a program to train agents to go undercover and spy on professors/students in our universities.1984 is here you are losing your freedom and sadly most in this country are too fucking stupid to understand or care.
Old news. They started doing that long before 1984.
And they don’t just spy. They also send in agitators, who pretend to be supporters of the group’s agenda, and try to talk them into doing something criminal or stupid.
I’m beginning to wonder if the guy impersonating what on this thread is one of those.
1984 is a book dumbass.it is about thought control,dictatorship.
And that is in reference to what?
NotSoFast
So if it’s old news then you are OK with it. Coward.
You are really losing it. Are you off your meds?
You lost the argument so you are moving on to personal attacks and, as expected, they have no basis in fact either. Bravo.
Yep. You’ve lost it. With your personal attack on me in plain sight.
Your aversion to admitting you are wrong keeps drawing you into ever sillier rationalizations. Just how much self-humiliation can you stand, anyway?
It wasn’t an attack it was a conclusion based on your comments. This is in contrast to your “off your meds” comments which has no basis in reality. I will admit when I am wrong when I have been shown to be. You have been shown to be. When will you admit it?
Why don’t you both just agree to disagree? All this argument is doing is making you both look stubborn and argumentative for little more than argument’s sake.
NSF jumped my shit when I said that I didn’t believe that this was a matter of free speech so what could I do? Ignore the attitude, disagree and move on. Neither one of you is going to concede to the others point, so now it seems like both of you are just interested in having the last word.
It was your response
to my post that has no basis in reality. My hypothesis — if you weren’t so pigheaded, you could have noticed the question mark — may be right or wrong, but definitely is based in the reality of your aberrant behavior, which clearly called for some explanation.
Congratulations on remembering your manners, once, with Show Me Some PROOF. If you can keep that up, maybe he won’t get fed up with you as fast as I did.
But I did, and I’m done.
Pinko,
I didn’t “jump your shit” because you disagreed with me. It was because of the way you were abusing another poster. Not that my remark wasn’t topical. But if you think you have the high ground here, review that exchange again.
What’s all the crying about?
NSF – my ‘abusive’ comment was a response to an unsubstantiated claim which I found offensive. If you didn’t like my tone, you should have said that in the first place. Quit being a combative.
OT
SC Governor Mark Sanford is rabidly anti gay:
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid93163.asp
Looks like it wasnt the gays that threatened the sanctity of this right wing “family values” proponents marriage but rather an Argentine mistress.
Crazy black (of course) church performs a gay exorcism:
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid93226.asp
Just one more example of why I steer clear of black folks.
Of course he’s anti-gay .Can’t win an election in good ole’ SC without bashing some fags.
As for black people- there are plenty of perfectly fine black people out there, just as there are plenty of piece of shit whites. Stop stereotyping the whole group.
But as for that video- what a bunch of fucking morons. They should be charged with assault.
Interesting video, but this doesn’t just occur in black churches. I have seen the Pentecostal church activities at first hand. Laying on hands is widespread in these churches as well as falling to the floor and rolling frantically around. How is this unlike frantically dancing and swooning voodoo practitioners? Ignorance knows no bounds.
This is a blatant attack on the separation of church and state.
Don’t you love when Christians say they’re being persecuted and that we live in a godless nation that attacks their values…then turn around and say that this is a Christian country?
Reason, I love your undercover idea! I wish I could be in on that.
Please check out my website about atheism.
Thus far Whutthole has posted 33 responses on this thread alone. Maybe the site should be renamed NeoNazi.com.
Ignore Me Some Proof has posted 26 times.
Not So Bright posted 28 times.
Do the math. So far, 87 posts of the 119 have been posted by amoebas. DW is the only freethinker that cares to argue with you idiots anymore, probably bored. Dvan and the rest of the freethinkers have left. While you idiots are debating whether a library is shielded from the power of religion, the thinkers are trying to save mankind from self extinction. Go play in your sandbox, and play nice.
NeoWolfe
Neoplasm
Saving mankind from extinction is admirable work. What did you do this past year toward that goal?
Neoplasm
Here’s one way you could help. Stop supporting a machine that grinds up lives.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062503427.html
And here I was excited because I what actually uses a bit of logic as opposed to our Christian friends quoting the Bible. We were even discussing the topic of the thread. What on earth would you like us to discuss on this blog?
Here you are counting 100 something posts and you’re whining because we aren’t saving lives? If every atheist were like you, JCC’s claims about atheists would be true.
Same old Neo. Stability in a changing world….
Same old neo, refusing to debate matchbooks when the world is on fire.
NeoWolfe
Neoplasm
Your delusions of grandeur are implacable.
Great fucking zombie jeebus jerky on a stick. Is this the kind of clusterfuck circular jerk firing squad this blog has devolved into since I’ve been gone? I mean, this issue irritates me, but it’s not worth this amount of acrimony.
No wonder dave keeps phreedm around. If he’s away, you try to kill each other! Don’t get me wrong, i like a good robust debate, but damn! I come online to the NoGodBlog to what we can agree on, to be a part of a community and stand in solidarity with non believers, and to fight against the onslaught of growing theocracy.
Proof, i could be wrong on the set precedents. fine. I know what i think the law should be.
Another person thought a precedent should be changed. Her name was Madelyn Murray O’Hair, and she changed public schools forever.
Do you think she would be proud of this argument?
Either we stand together or we hang seperately.
I apologize if you think I am attempting to create a dividing line here, or that I think what is being a moron- neither is the case.
I’m simply trying to be realistic and look at the situation from a non-atheistic but reasonable point of view.
Show Me Some PROOF says:
In the law, the reasonable view is atheistic. The constitution: No establishment of religion.
I misspoke, let me clarify. I was trying to be secular but not to be anti-religious.
Exactly.
There hasn’t been much of a debate here. There really isn’t much to debate about, since most important religious liberty issues were settled long ago, thanks to Madalyn and others like her.
I was just trying to explain to what and a couple of others that the constitution requires a government agency to accommodate all comers equally, religious and non-religious and anti-religious alike. But what started wrangling with me about it, refusing to be educated.
Show Me Some PROOF says:
The courts are saying the same thing. The group was meeting in the mornings for Bible study prayers or something, and then holding a religious service in the afternoon. The 9th Circuit affirmed that the county couldn’t exclude the morning activities (which the county had already allowed anyway) but could exclude the services if they could draft a “reasonable” directive.
Can you provide the link to where you found this more-specific information?
Go here and click on the link “9th Circuit” to download the PDF text of the decision.
Calling their activity “Bible Study” instead of a “religious service” is nothing but attaching different words to the same behavior. The judge should be removed from his post for bending to such stupidity.
But you are wrong. “All comers”? Yes. All uses? No. It’s that simple.
I rest my case without questioning the witnesses. This is idiots.com. Some of the contributers here actually have a clue, but, but the kindergarten has been taken over by monguloid bullies. It has become a pissing match between mushrooms. Devoid of purpose.
NeoWolfe
Isn’t a library suppose to be quiet? The church services and religious get togethers I have seen are anything but quiet.
The library board could undoubtedly exclude these services for just that reason. I have no idea why they’re not doing it.
It’s pretty insulting to Humanity and anyone with common sense that something like this happened. It’s especially insulting when people use a library to have their prayer services. Our tax dollars pay to keep federal buildings, like libraries, open for the public to use for research, for children to learn, and for anyone else who use libraries. If they want to practice their religion, they need to find a place of their own to do it. Stop wasting tax dollars. If you want to pray to a god, do it on your own watch. Not ours.
Another thing that really pisses me off is when people use religion as an excuse to humiliate and rob people of their civil liberties. For example, the use of religion to deny people the right to marry based on their sexual preference. If a dude wants to slob another, so what? If he wants to marry another due, let him. They’re not hurting anyone. To use a book, such as the bible, to deny people their rights as pure bullshit. Who gives a damn if they’re the same sex. Let them be as miserable as the rest of us. Another motherfucker that pisses me is that piece of shit Christ and his trusty sidekick – the Prophet Mohammed. If those 2 bastards were taken out at an early age, then none of the bullshit Humanity has put up for 2 millenium would have never happened. People who use religion as an excuse to behead, torture, and rape others who don’t have those beliefs are a bunch of pussies who need to be shot on site. It’s called “Thinning the Herd”.
Religious Magnet…
We link our site to this blog – for the impotent information that it gives….
Must be unintentional irony.