Posted on 09/16/2010 1:48:29 AM PDT by Rashputin
What Are D.C. Police Doing Enforcing Shariah Law?
Police officers, at the direction of an imam, remove six Muslim women from the Islamic Center. Their crime? Worshiping peacefully.
The Islamic Center, housed in a magnificent building in Washington, D.C., has been around for over a half-century, but it is seldom in the news. Unless you drive by (on Embassy Row) you would not know that it there. Because it is supposed to be a peaceful place of worship, we would not expect local police to enter.
Yet last March they did. Three D.C. Metropolitan police officers entered the center, at the direction of an imam, and removed six Muslim women. Their crime? They were worshiping peacefully in the main prayer hall after the imam announced that women were forbidden to enter that area.
What happened in Washington, D.C., should remind us of the peaceful sit-ins of the 1960s. The courts found that the police action removing people from private businesses violated the Equal Protection Clause.
In a series of cases the lower federal courts and the Supreme Court reversed convictions of black and white civil protestors who were convicted under state criminal trespass or disturbing the peace laws when they sat in the “white-only” section of various lunch counters and restaurants and refused to move after having been ordered to do so by the agent of the establishment.
Neither state nor federal laws at the time required the restaurants to serve blacks, but the courts found “state action” that violated Equal Protection. In Garner v. Louisiana (1961), for example, the Supreme Court reversed the convictions (under a state disturbing the peace statute) of those who had engaged in a sit-in, because the record was “totally devoid of evidentiary support” that petitioners caused any disturbance of the peace. They sat there quietly.
Peterson v. Greenville (1963) reversed the trespass conviction of blacks who had engaged in a lunch counter sit-in. The store manager asked the blacks to leave because integrated service was “contrary to local customs” and a local ordinance. The Supreme Court held that “these convictions cannot stand,” whether or not a local ordinance supported the store manager. In Lombard v. Louisiana (1963), decided the same day, the Court reversed the trespass convictions of three blacks and one white who had sat in a privately owned restaurant that served only whites. The case involved no statutes or ordinances, but the police did say that “no additional sit-in demonstrations … will be permitted.” Justice Douglas, concurring, argued that there was state action when the state judiciary “put criminal sanctions behind racial discrimination in public places.”
There are precious little differences between the sit-in cases of the 1960s and the Muslim sit-in cases. We knew, in the 1960s, that the Equal Protection Clause forbids discrimination based on color. We know now that the Equal Protection Clause forbids discrimination based on gender. We know that the lunch counters were open to anyone who wanted to eat, except blacks, or blacks had to sit at a special section. We know that the mosque is open to anyone who wants to worship God, except that women must sit at special places — sort of like “back of the bus.”
And we know that the discrimination based on race or sex could not exist without the help of the local police. The question is why the D.C. police — who have real crime to worry about – are spending their time and taxpayer dollars to enforce sharia law.
Our First Amendment protects the right of people to believe whatever they want to believe. But there are limits to how they can act on their beliefs. For example, a religion may believe that racial segregation is God’s way. They can believe that, but the state cannot aid that belief by, for example, giving federally subsidized loans to colleges that discriminate on the basis of race. The people of Washington, D.C., should not be enforcing shariah law.
Ronald Rotunda is the Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at the Chapman University School of Law.
Right, but you do realize that private clubs and religious schools and places of worship are exempt from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, right?
If not, the Catholic Church would not be allowed to disallow women from becoming priests, follow me?
We aren't talking about a lunch counter, we're talking a place of worship. They are not governed by the same anti-discrimination laws.
Let's say you were at Sunday service, and at that service a group of thirty homosexuals sat in the front row holding signs or wearing shirts that were blasphemous to your church. Do you think that the minister/priest/rabbi of your church would have the legal authority to order them to leave, and if they didn't could he call the police, who would then enforce the wishes of the private property owner?
I think you know the answer to that question.
I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. You must not be thinking through what you're saying. Catholic Churches aren't private? Of course they are. They are tax-exempt because they promise not to engage in political dialogue, that's all.
But, the Church controls who is or is not a member, right? Have you ever heard of excommunication? Do you think you have right to appeal your excommunication to the court? Of course you don't. Why? Because the Church, like all churches, is a wholly private enterprise.
Religions have a right to set their own rules—on private property. Orthodox Jews, and even a few Christian groups (the Amish perhaps? some of the Eastern Orthodox?) traditionally separate men and women in worship—as Muslims always do.
If homosexuals came into your Church dressed in drag...attempting to disrupt your service, don’t you have the right to call the police and have them removed?
These women were doing the same kind of protest—as the main prayers in Mosques always separate men and women. When the women refused to follow the rules (even though you and I don’t like Islam’s rules here) they became trespassers, and the Mosque had a right to expect the police to remove them (just like police should remove any protestors from any religious or private property).
We should be concerned about the many Mosques on American soil which preach violence against the government—NOT the ones that simply rely on the same law we all expect to rely on.
What statutes can you cite that define this situation as trespassing? If a teen aged member of a protestant church went to the young adults Sunday School class and refused to leave, are the police required to respond?
Your example of gays dressed is drag disrupting a service is far beyond someone worshiping in an area designated for others. These women were probably regulars in that mosque. And the same concept you cite was once cited by business owners to refuse service on the basis of race rather than sex.
Are there actual statutes that specify situations like this in a place of worship as trespassing, or just your opinion that trespassing laws would apply?
And many here keep saying the mosque is private property. Who owns it? Specifically who has an ownership interest and who does not? I doubt anyone here knows that, or whether Muslims have formal membership requirements, and whether these members were members.
In FL (my state), it's 810.08.
Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass in a structure or conveyance.
When you are on private property, you are there by invitation. That invitation may be withdrawn at any time. If you are on private property without leave of the owner, you are - by definition - trespassing.
"If a teen aged member of a protestant church went to the young adults Sunday School class and refused to leave, are the police required to respond?"
Yes. One of the roles of law enforcement is to protect the rights of the public. One of those rights, of course, is the right of private property owners. And, as I have pointed out, those "young adults" would be (at least in FL) in violation of FL statute.
"Are there actual statutes that specify situations like this in a place of worship as trespassing, or just your opinion that trespassing laws would apply?"
Are you being argumentative, or sarcastic?
Really, it's not that complicated, which leads me to believe you're being argumentative.
Who owns it? The corporation, partnership or sole propriety that is the religious enterprise owns it. There are officers of that corporation and those officers or designees, enjoy the rights that any private property owner enjoys.
If you walk into a church and the parish priest or his designee tells you to leave and you don't leave, you're trespassing. It's not that complicated.
Or maybe many on here post things as fact they can't really substantiate. At the end of my first post, I said the article probably doesn't provide enough information to draw conclusions. I'm sticking with that unless someone provides some specific statutes or court cases that address this as it relates to mosques or churches. There might not be any precedents for this specific circumstance, and I wouldn't wait for those Muslim women to file a law suit to clarify it.
And one can never be certain how a court might rule on such a highly specific set of circumstances as this. I'm calling it a gray area of the law until it's clarified by reference to statutes or a court case.
Of course it does. You have to use just a little common sense.
You said in an earlier post, "And many here keep saying the mosque is private property."
Of course it's private property. How many mosques or other places of worship are on public property? Here's a hint - ZERO (other than those built, staffed and maintained by the US Armed Forces). In this country (with VERY limited exception), property is either public (owned by the government on behalf of the people), or it's private - deeded and titled to a private individual, partnership, or corporation.
If it's private property - and it's CLEARLY private property - then the owner (and his designee) enjoy the full rights and privileges of any private property owner.
"There might not be any precedents for this specific circumstance, and I wouldn't wait for those Muslim women to file a law suit to clarify it."
Again, think about what you're saying - you think that there might be a chance that plaintiffs in a lawsuit will win an injunction to tell a house of worship how it may exercise its fundamental 1A right. Does that seem at all likely?
To take the thought exercise one step further, do you think a woman could sue a Catholic church because the church wouldn't make her a priest? Does that seem likely? Of course not.
There are a whole host of Supreme Court cases where the Court affirms a private group's right to not associate, Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) and Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) are just two that come to mind immediately. But, there are others.
The Church (or mosque in this case) enjoys a robust 1A right to limit, exclude or define its membership, as well as a robust right to define or structure its religious services, to include the gender segregation of those services. The police in this case did the only thing they could do, and what they were legally obligated to do - enforce the private property rights of the owner, and remove the trespassers.
It's quite the exercise in absurdity, this Rotunda piece, is it not? It's surprising, considering Pajama's Media usually has quality contributors.
The guy's a fellow at CATO. You might think he'd have a fuller understanding of private property rights and the 1st Amendment.
He cited law, and I can give you an example of the application of such a law.
At my home church in Maryland, a psychotic individual in the congregation took opportunity during a pause in the service (under an inexperienced minister) to enter the pulpit and start ranting about how he was an angel and Jesus....(etc. etc.). At that point in the service a burly elder moved up beside him, and another came up, and forcibly removed him out of the service. The police were called and the man was arrested. I witnessed this from the pews and it was a bizarre event, especially since the church is quite big (sanctuary holds 700+) but, things like this do happen.
In regards to the Mosque: There is no weird application of “sharia” here and it’s silly to think so.
Why get upset over this normal application of OUR law when Moslems ARE involved in forcing sharia finance, preaching the overthrow the government, and have training camps for terrorists scattered around the USA? Something like 80% of the Mosques are financed by Saudi money too, and Saudi Arabia is where you get thrown in prison if you are caught with so much as a Bible!
Calling the police for a disturbance of any kind on private property (and yes, virtually ANY religious institution is, by definition, on private property) is nothing to worry about....especially when the really worrisome things as I mentioned above are really existent.
Waste of time. You have provided nothing which substantiates that it is a proper function for any law enforcement agency to become involved with this specific type situation.
Lol, many churches divide their Sunday School classes and other functions by age and sex. So, according to you, if some church members go to classes not intended for their age and sex, and refuse to leave, then the church should call the cops to come and straighten it out.
I’m finished with this thread. This is one for the courts in such very specific situations.
Of course, come to think of it, I think Erwin Chimerinsky of all people was a contributor at Cato Unbound in the past....
You mean that it's not the "proper function of any law enforcement" to enforce private property rights. Certainly, you're entitled to your opinion, but that would be a minority opinion.
"So, according to you, if some church members go to classes not intended for their age and sex, and refuse to leave, then the church should call the cops to come and straighten it out."
Should they call? Probably not. But, if they do call, the police will come, and they'll respect the wishes of the property owner and remove the trespasser(s).
I see you continue to ignore the example of the homosexuals disturbing a church service. Apparently you don't believe they should intercede there, either. Again, the minority opinion.
You are claiming that if members of a church or mosque do not obey all the customs and rules of the church or mosque, then they are trespassers. No one has provided any specific statute or court case that upholds that. Until someone does, you're just pretending you know how a court would rule on those very narrow circumstances, and you don't know that.
Actually, the church or mosque should just revoke their membership if the breach of rules is so serious. There is no mention of violence or wild behavior or property damage. It should not be a police matter. Then if they try to reenter after membership is revoked, it might become a trespass.
The police have far more important things to do than enforce church rules and customs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.