Posted on 06/13/2008 1:17:17 PM PDT by CWWren
I just did a quick Google on them, and they do appear to be a respectable group. However, I still doubt “anti-Christian” bias on the part of the library board, and think cluelessness re the laws on church-state separation is more likely the issue. That and concerns about what other sorts of “religious” groups may demand to start using the meeting rooms if this one is allowed to. The library board certainly has to answer to higher authorities in local and state government, and they’re going to get smacked down on this. If they weren’t clueless, they’d have figured that out in advance, and not bothered. So I suspect either cluelessness, or that it’s a temporary policy while they draft a new policy and have it vetted by legal experts, so that they can have a clear and legally sustainable basis for allowing legitimate groups that serve the community to use the rooms, while keeping out financial scam operators, jihadists, and overtly racist ranters like the famous Rev. Wright.
Anyone who listens to Christian radio has to be familiar with Crown Financial Ministries. It’s a very popular, very well known ministry that I’ve never seen involved in any controversy. They teach biblical principles regarding finances. I’ve not used their material firsthand, but I’ve certainly never heard anything on their radio shows or seen anything that would lead me to believe there is anything questionable about their work and teaching.
Besides, it is not the job of the local library board to be passing judgment on private groups and their activities - if they have a concern about ‘jihadists’ (which is a whole other religion, need I point out?), they should be contacting the FBI or police, not making a unilateral decision that violates the Constitution.
Most librarians and their libraries’ boards are members of the National Library Association, one of the most far-left liberal professional groups around, ACLUesque to the max..., making the National Teachers Association look stodgy.
This is the same group that tells librarians not to allow parents to see what materials their young kids have checked out—and advocates the allowance of internet porn in the library (with reasonable privacy, of course....).
Don’t be so sure that this particular library board isn’t just simply anti-Christian—not merely clueless to the law.
Note also that the lawyer sent a cease and desist letter to the board, BEFORE filing a lawsuit (a standard operating procedure)—something the article specifically says the board claimed did not happen...meaning they lied.
Ask them if they have any copies of the Bible in their library...or did they burn them all?
If they have a copy, is it OK if your lips move as you read it in the stacks?
Do they allow Christians to use the public roads in that county? That board’s decision is not just wrong, it is idiotic and uninformed about well-established law. Doesn’t sound like the library board has spent much time reading.
“Do you think all public buildings should be required to allow use for religious services?”
Where did you get all public buildings? This was in reference to a room in a public library used for public meetings. These kinda rooms are meant for these kinda meetings.
“So its sorry folks, we can’t have a trial today, because the Islamic Church of Ohio is using our Courtroom for services (at taxpayer expense).”
Thats just silly.
However, these alternative uses of public buildings are normally limited to public schools and other buildings that have been specifically designed to support community events. Country administrative buildings, the court house, etc. usually have functions that exclude use by any other group. In addition, they may hold important government and public records, pilferable/dangerous/hazardous equipment and materials that have to be protected from unauthorized public access.
In this case, the library was apparently built with public meeting spaces incorporated into its design. There usually are limitations on what the spaces can and cannot be used for and there may be fees and other restrictions associated with their use. Some obvious limitations are prohibiting the display of obscene or pornographic materials, no presentations advocating treasonous or criminal activities, etc. Fees charged usually include building administrative, security services, and janitorial cleanup after an event. Normally, there is some sort of pro rata charge for the utilities that may be used during the use (electricity, water, common cleaning supplies, etc.).
These rules of use have to be published beforehand to establish the ground rules for facility use and they must be neutral with respect to viewpoint. Be clear on this: the government entity has to be viewpoint neutral in administering the facility, the private user/group using/renting the facility does not. As long as the rules of use conform to the law and the user conforms to those rules, denying use by one group or another based solely on their viewpoint (in this case, Christian-oriented financial advice) is clearly unconstitutional.
These are not private facilities. They were paid for and maintained with public funds. The library staff and the library board are administrators. They do not hold the deed to these facilities. They are administrating it on behalf of the public and are to be guided in their actions by public regulations and the law.
The library board's action in this case is a perfect example of petty bureaucratic pique. Called to respect the law concerning the use of publically-funded meeting facilities by the public, they instead chose to vindictively deny their use to all citizens in order to frustrate one user whose viewpoint they disagree with.
Unfortunately for them, that move is also actionable in a court of law. So now, they will go back to court to compel public officials to administer public facilities in a lawful, nondiscriminatory manner.
I'm sure the city/county is going to really enjoy paying for their continuing stubbornness.
This is the law? Is it nationwide?
Where I live public schools are closed up at the end of the school day.
Do you think these public building should remain open for religious services?
Do you draw the line anywhere?
Their action sets a precedent which can be used to deny Muslim groups from using the library.
Along with the fundamental texts of several major and two dozen other lesser religions?
That brings up an interesting side note. The Bible is quoted so often in ancient texts that we would be capable of regenerating the whole thing if all the original manuscripts were tossed into the fire. So, the passages in question that were going to be read from the Bible probably already exist within the walls of that Library, quoted in some other book or text. Looks like the folks on the library board are going to have to get busy removing all biblical references if they really feel the public should not have exposure to this material.
It is the law if the school has ANY after hours activities. Here is the case information:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Case Number: 99—2036; GOOD NEWS CLUB, et al., PETITIONERS v. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL
link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-2036.ZO.html
The decision:
"When Milford denied the Good News Club access to the school’s limited public forum on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it discriminated against the Club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Because Milford has not raised a valid Establishment Clause claim, we do not address the question whether such a claim could excuse Milford’s viewpoint discrimination."
The final note in the decision elaborates on the access issue:
"9. Both parties have briefed the Establishment Clause issue extensively, and neither suggests that a remand would be of assistance on this issue. Although Justice Souter would prefer that a record be developed on several facts, see post, at 7, and Justice Breyer believes that development of those facts could yet be dispositive in this case, see post, at 2, none of these facts is relevant to the Establishment Clause inquiry. For example, Justice Souter suggests that we cannot determine whether there would be an Establishment Clause violation unless we know when, and to what extent, other groups use the facilities. When a limited public forum is available for use by groups presenting any viewpoint, however, we would not find an Establishment Clause violation simply because only groups presenting a religious viewpoint have opted to take advantage of the forum at a particular time."
Where I live public schools are closed up at the end of the school day.
That's fine. Where I live, many different clubs and groups (including religious ones) use our schools after hours and on weekends.
Do you think these public building should remain open for religious services?
If they are made available for any other non-school use, they should be available for religious use as well. Otherwise, it is government viewpoint discrimination.
Do you draw the line anywhere?
I think the list I gave before is a pretty good start: incitement to or solicitation of obscene acts, pornography, criminal behavior, sedition, and treason.
There are probably others but it's late and I have to get up to cut the grass early tomorrow morning before the heat fries my brain.
Good night.
P.S.: The reason I think there will be further filings is because the library was deliberately designed with conference rooms intended for general public use. In denying their use to everybody, the Library Board is essentially discriminating against all viewpoints, and that position is not viewpoint neutral either. It's just petty, vindictive bureaucratic peevishness.
While most of what they say is praised, some Christian financial planners, such as Gary Moore, criticize Crown for what they consider an aversion to taking on debt.
(Wikipedia)
It must be this aversion to assuming debt to which the library officials object. Jesus was really big on Christians becoming heavily indebted.
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.