A Stitch in Haste

Where does the following generally take place?

Participants at Faith Center's meetings generally "(a) discuss educational, cultural, and community issues from a religious perspective; (b) engage in religious speech and religious worship; and (c) engage in discussing the Bible and other religious books [as well as] teaching, praying, singing, sharing testimonies, sharing meals, and discussing social and political issues."

If you answered "in a church," then congratulations -- you are not a flaming idiot.

If you answered "in a taxpayer-funded public library," then too bad so sad, you lose and thanks for playing:

In any event it is simply beyond cavil that the instant case does not present a close question. Appellees have been completely candid in acknowledging that the purpose of the meetings they proposed to hold on public property is "Prayer, Praise and Worship Open to [the] Public, Purpose to Teach and Encourage Salvation thru Jesus Christ and Build Up Commun[ity]." To assert an inability to conclude that purpose is religious in every sense, is to engage in the kind of sophistry that gives the law a bad name.

There are plenty of cases where opponents of the separation of church and state -- including of course the Bush Administration -- try to erode what is really a rudimentary constitutional concept (see., e.g., here). But this one was so easy as to be laughable.

More:

It may be that the majority of the Supreme Court really has doubt about the ability to distinguish between religious practice and secular speech. If so, they need only leave their chambers, go out in the street and ask the first person they meet whether in the instant case the conduct is religious in character.

Ouch.

It is said that "hard cases make for bad law." Perhaps we should think instead in terms of "good law makes for easy cases."

---

The case is Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries v. Glover, No 05-16132 (9th Cir., September 20, 2006) (PDF - 59 pages).

(Via Decision of the Day and How Appealing.)