Posted on 05/02/2006 9:19:28 AM PDT by Crackingham
Tehama County's social service agency struck the right balance between free speech and religious neutrality when it prohibited an employment counselor from discussing religion with his clients, displaying a Bible in his cubicle or holding prayer meetings in a conference room, a federal appeals court ruled Monday. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the department respected employee Daniel Berry's rights by telling him he could hold prayer sessions in a lunchroom or outdoors but not in an official meeting room, and could discuss his religious beliefs privately but not with his public clients.
Public employers must steer a difficult course between two constitutional hazards, said Judge Consuelo Callahan: "infringing on employees' rights to the free exercise of their religions'' and "appearing to endorse their employees' religious expressions'' in violation of the ban on a government-established religion. She said the agency's policy avoided both pitfalls.
Berry, a 15-year employee, still works at the department. His lawyers said no decision has been made on a further appeal.
"Religious expression in a public forum, especially expressions favoring the predominant religion in our country, seem to get back-seated all the time,'' said Anthony Poidmore, an attorney for Berry. He said the suit was being financed by the Pacific Justice Institute, which is a conservative religious-liberty organization.
J. Scott Smith, a lawyer for Tehama County, said the court recognized a government agency's duty to respect "the rights of citizens to receive services in a religiously neutral environment.''
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Pray in secret, as Jesus recommended.
Employers own the workplace and should be free to determine what goes on there.
"Employers own the workplace and should be free to determine what goes on there."
Pretty much sums it up.
Who put "gay agenda" in the keywords? Kinda off-topic doncha think?
Censor the Christian (and welcome to Babylon).
One of my bosses has a Bible on his desk. Who should I complain to?
You do realize this employer is not a private corporation......right?
You have oversimplified this matter and incorrectly summed up the law.
A Government employer's wrognful suppression of free religious exercise by employees is constitutionally forbidden (at least under current case law).
Where the Government draws the line as to what is acceptable in the workplace and what is not is very important.
If, for example, a portrait of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr is allowed in the office, but a portrait of Jesus or Pope John Paul II (or a Buddha statue) is not allowed, there is clearly unconstitutional discrimination against certain religions.
Oversimplification is the enemy of serious thought.
I bet if he wanted to discuss the merits of gay masochism as potential therapy to make the patient feel better, that would be just fine.
Would you be still outraged?
This is a government employer.
If, for example, official meeting rooms are used by employees for non-official business, then not allowing prayer meetings is unconstitutional.
For example, a book club cannot be permitted to use the room, while a bible club is not permitted.
Yes, but that is even MORE of a reason to keep proselytizing out of public sector offices.
"Pray in secret, as Jesus recommended."
This particular passage from the Bible has been misunderstood by many. In its context, Jesus was talking about the Pharisees who prayed in public for the purposes of seeming holier than others. Jesus was talking about motive.
There are several examples of corporate prayer in the book of Acts (that is, not all prayer was done in a closet). Jesus Himself said, "If two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven."
Matt 18:19 (KJV)
So, if the guy is praying in order to impress people with what a saint he is, then it is wrong. But if two or more Christians want to get together and pray, it is entirely scriptural.
Every citizen has the potential of running afoul of government regulations, and must decide based on his own conscience whether the rules are too onerous. Of course, there are consequences for disobedience. While the Bible counsels obedience to government authorities, there are limits. Early Christians refused to worship Roman gods and were executed for it.
If I were the guy in the story, I would comply with the requirements. But if he chooses a different action, I will not fault him.
The commies. The ACLU will destroy him for you. He's obviously not being part of the great secular collective ! He must be forced to comply!
Yes it is. Your example is flawed. MLK was much more of a political figure than a religious one. The more apt comparison would be a picture of MLK to a picture of George Washington.
A Government employer's wrognful suppression of free religious exercise by employees is constitutionally forbidden (at least under current case law).
Then it shouldn't be, and this decision may go toward correcting the current case law.
I don't think when the founders drew up the Constitution that the government would become so powerful and wind itself into all our institutions - schooling, welfare, etc.
I think they would be horrified to see the monster.
You are not being paid to read the Bible and pray. And, since this is a government worker, I do not want to be taxed to pay for someone to read the Bible and pray.
As to prayer meetings in the conference room. . .as long as they are held during a lunch break or something, attendance is by invitation (also given during a break time), and no work related activities are being thwarted in the process, I don't see anything wrong with it.
Welcome to America where we force religion and morality into the closet. All speech is free but religous and morality based speech.
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.