May 28, 2005

First Amendment Protects Religious Groups, Court Rules

I wish that I didn't have to write an entry with such a title. After all, that the First Amendment protects religious citizens should be crystal clear to everyone. Unfortunately, it isn't clear to many public officials.

Take this case in Contra Costa County out in California, where any group of citizens can reserve a room for public meetings on any topic, free of charge -- except for religious groups, which were forbidden to use the library at all.

A federal judge has ordered Contra Costa County to let religious groups use its public rooms for meetings in a case involving the Antioch Library.

The county says use of its public spaces for religious purposes violates its policies and it will continue to fight a lawsuit demanding access.

Last year it banned a religious group from the community meeting room at the Antioch Library and the group went to court to assert its free speech rights.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White ruled this week that when the county makes available a room in a library, it cannot enforce a policy that bans religious purposes. His preliminary order issued Tuesday remains in effect while the parties continue to litigate the case.

The ruling affects libraries with meeting rooms managed by county library staffers. Libraries with meeting rooms managed by cities, such as Danville, San Ramon, Moraga and Orinda, are not affected, said Kelly Flanagan, a Contra Costa deputy counsel.

So let's be real clear here -- the reason for exclusion from the rooms was the religious content of the speech that was going to take place. That is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment rights of the group that sought to reserve teh room, and of every other religious group that sought (or might have sought) to use the library. In effect, it establishes atheism as the official religion of the library system.

Even the God-haters agree with that position.

The government cannot exclude groups "simply because they have a religious viewpoint," said Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that opposes religion in government.

"They had a policy from the get-go that discriminated against religious groups," he said. "We don't often agree with Alliance Defense Fund, but in this case, they have a point."

The fact that the library system plans on appealing this common sense ruling shows the depth of their bias. I wonder if the judge can be persuaded to order "sensitivity training" for library empoyees.

Posted by: Greg at 02:32 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

1 RR: I obviously agree with the protections of the 1st Amendment, but there is a contemporary danger. Jihadists today are using their mosques and schools as the bully pulpet to plot and encourage violence against the US and its people. How do we deal with a religious group where there is no separation between theology and politics? In carrying out their plans (whatever they involve) are Muslims protected in doing so?

Posted by: Mustang at Sat May 28 03:36:54 2005 (nP7cz)

2 Common sense dictates that they are not.

Conspiracy to commit a bona fide criminal act, including treason, is clearly not protected.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat May 28 07:09:17 2005 (vm849)

3 How dare you twist the article around by not quoting every letter of it. Oh well, I guess it's just another case of an attack by The Dishonest And Intellectually Deficient Right.

Posted by: dolphin at Sun May 29 23:12:37 2005 (V5cZa)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
8kb generated in CPU 0.0054, elapsed 0.0137 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0106 seconds, 32 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]