Library Sued for Cancelling Religious Meeting

Thank you for posting this thread about a common values we all share: freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and freedom of faith. Since 1984 when Congress passed the Equal Access Act and later with the RLUIPA law, all publicly-funded institutions are mandated by law to treat religious groups equally with non-religious. Even without these laws the US and many state constitutions protect these rights.

This kind of case has been won many times over since the 1980s when Christian legal groups organized and defended all people of faith from secular bias. Here is one of many typical reports:

ADF Allied Attorney Wins Right for Group to Meet in Public Library…
An ADF-supported legal team was successful in an effort to knock down another one of these barriers, this time in Mitchell County, Texas.

Rev. Seneca Lee wanted to use the “Hesperian Room” at the Mitchell County Public Library to hold a meeting that addressed political and social issues from a Christian perspective. Rev. Lee received a letter back from the library that stated that “the [library] policy proscribes that such meeting room is not available for religious purposes.” With ADF funding, an action was filed in federal court against the public library on the basis that the library violated his First Amendment right to free speech when it denied his application.

Here’s the great news: after the suit was filed the library quickly backed down and repealed its discriminatory policy!

—

In other cases the courts had to rule and the library had to pay. About the only exceptions I know of to this are if the group wants to use the library for church services or if the group wants to use the library for illegal purposes like child pornography.

“God cares about football.” — Almost an evangelical article of faith with a small ‘f’.

Upper Arlington Golden Bears have alway fielded state championship-class high school football teams. Ohio and Texas share a common virtue of the football culture. My spouse and I are OSU grads too. I predict in 2008 the Bucks will take the national championship.

(I was raised northeast of you around Canton, home of Canton McKinley High School (another state champion producer) and of the NFL Hall of Fame. The first NFL game ever was played on Canton McKinley’s high school field by the way.

G.B.B.M.

This happens all the time really, it’s so sad. Some group of people doesn’t get their way and the immediately go straight to the discrimination card without looking at the facts.

QUOTE WITH MY COMMENTS IN BOLD:
Some group of people {IN THIS CASE THE LIBRARY BUREAUCRATS] doesn’t get their way and they immediately go straight to the discrimination [YES, THEY DID GO STRAIGHT TO COMMITING ANTI-FAITH DISCRIMINATION] card without looking at the facts.

HAD THE LIBRARY LOOKED AT THE FACTS, IT WOULD HAVE REALIZED THAT IT IS GOING TO LOSE A LAWSUIT!

Analysis–

Other federal courts have ruled it constitutinal to open a meeting in prayer. What about setting aside a time in the meeting itself for a religious group to pray? Is only one prayer lawful and two or more unlawful? See the free speech censorship? An how much NOISE could prayer make? It matters little to the noise level if one talks to God or to man!

I think the library could have a point if it banned ALL singing or music. But then again does it permit listening to classical music? My library has a bank of listening rooms for music. An it also has a community room where noise is allowed. We hold kids events there and have music!

If the library wanted to ban all music or all speech above a certain decibel level, then it could be viewpoint-neutral.

I read the court record. The library actually had a written policy banning all religious meetings! When the lawsuit was filed, they realized they were helpless, so they changed it to ban only religious services like church services… also a constitutionally dicey proposition outside of California. Somehow they concluded that this religious political was not a religious political meesting but a religious worship service. It was not. The law makes a clear legal distinction.

The city is trying to settle out of court now. Don’t hold your breath. They got caught and they are trying to save face.

I agree with Patti….The Libraries are a sacred ground for literature and knowledge. Can’t we not respect that? Do we always have to involve the Amendments? Or snare ourselves into politics. Can’t we use common sense? Come on! Its a meeting ground for books (and music)…all kinds of books. Books that do not discriminate on who goes in there. They don’t want singing and praying in their library then you don’t SING and PRAY! That is not a crime, and not enough to make a dramatic public pose. Its so simple. Their reason is not bad.

Dear Kitty,

There is no THEY. It is only WE THE PEOPLE. And WE THE PEOPLE want to pray and sing in our public buildings.

Should a minority of anti-faith bigots deny us, the people, our rights?

No, and rights must be defended…not allowed to be trampled. If they deny us the right to pray in a library today, they may deny us the right to pray at a high school graduation tomorrow. (Atucally they are even trying that too!)

I applaud everyone who defends human rights, especially free speech and freedom of faith.

Oh so the people in the library are not part of “We the People?” Its a library rule. Its a policy for EVERYONE. Define “FRIEND” who your “We the People” are. Anti-faith? How do you know? Your always the one to throw the first stone arn’t you? This is just going to lead people into segragated libraries. Is that what you want? I bet you do. So if people of a different belief decides to go to your church and read their own book and sing their own song, what can you do? It would be their human rights, right? You can’t stop them. But I bet your group will be more then willing to make some lawyers rich.

That is so sad..the library is being sued for upholding its own policy. That just shows how narrow minded people can be!

And by the way “friend” what happened to that law that states the seperation of church and state. The library did not discrimanate because of your beliefs, they just did not want SINGING in the library ..gosh I was always told the library had to be kept silent. I guess that only goes if your not going to sue.

Perhaps, we should do what you suggested Kitty? If singing and praying is permitted in all public buildings, perhaps people should go and sing and pray in the middle of council meetings, in churches of other denominations, in the middle of schools? It would cause extreme disruption and would be very out of place and unwanted. I would hope Friend could agree that sometimes singing and praying are unneeded and there is a time and a place for everything and some time that time and place is somewhere else and another time.

The point was not discrimination, it was about disruption. Singing and praying can take place at home, or in a community centre. A library is not the best place to conduct a noisy meeting, however well intentioned. It should also be the library’s reserved right to reject applications to use the room based on criteria that clearly goes against library policies across the world! Listening rooms for music are sound-proofed in libraries, meeting rooms are not.

While it is uplifting to hear any voices singing praise, I would not enjoy it in a library while I was working. I am working very hard on my thesis at university and I would be extremely annoyed if another group disrupted my reading and ultimately affected my degree classification. Do you think I could launch a lawsuit, if that were the case, to restore the lost marks?

Some people need to read Patti’s orginal article again. The political group reserved a private meeting room exclusively for their own use. They were not singing and praying group prayers in the public areas. When they reserved the room, they are entitled to the same freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion rights that apply to any person in a reserved meeting room on government property. Numerous state and federal court decisions have held that prayer is constitutionally protected free speech and that discussion of religion is protected free speech.

The library bureaucrats themselves made this a religious matter when they took it upon themselves to ban religious speech. That violates atleast two federal laws and both the Ohio and US Constitutions. The library bureaucrats’ objection was not to noise level, but to content. That is unlawful.

The people tried to get the bureaucrats to change by talking with them. The bureaucrats refused. Only when the lawsuit was filed did the bureaucrats change their unlawful policy. They said, “Okay, you may have religious meetings, just don’t pray or sing.” Well, that is illegal too in light of previous court rulings. Now the bureaucrats are saying publicly that they hope to avoid and trial and settle by negotiation. They are a few months too late. Where was this concilliatory attitude when WE THE PEOPLE first tried to negotiate with them?

Elphaba– There is nothing sad about suing bureaucrats for upholding an illegal policy. I see the lawsuit as an heroic fight for civil liberties. So do the courts. The narrow-mindedness is on the part of those who disregard law and the constitution.

And the law about the so-called seperation of church and state does not exist in the Constitution. It was a private letter by Jefferson written years after the Constitution was completed. The only mention of religion is the anti-establishment clause in the frist amendment. The courts hold this to prevent actions of government like this by the bureaucrats. Gov’t is forbidden from restricting the free exercise of religion even on government property such as schools, hospitals, military bases, prisons, and even libraries. Once the library allowed WE THE PEOPLE to reserve the room, the library lost any right to restrict our free speech.

As for singing in the private meeting room, I could see an objection to that if the objection were based upon NOISE LEVEL and not upon RELIGIOUS CONTENT of the songs. Banning all music in the library meetings rooms would be lawful. So would banning noise levels above a certain decibel level. Then the religious political group could pray and sing to their hearts’ content as long as they kept the noise below the limit. That would be fair and lawful.

I hope we can all agree upon the need to respect civil and basic human rights.

Decca G,

Yes, it sounds as if we are mostly in agreement. The library can and should prevent disruption. The library cannot and must not restrict free speech.

I believe the evidence shows the bureaucrats acted in bad faith to prevent religious meetings (their original denial policy said so!). I could find no evidence the bureaucrats raised a noise issue. But we shall see…

Thanks for a thoughtful and courteous reply.

Ah…duh..it says “including singing and praying” and they took action. Not because of religious reasons, its because of their policy. Call them bureaucrats, call them religious, call them Timmy…doesn’t matter, they are still people and you yourself should respect that. Of all the places on this planet they could choose, they decided on a library. And by the way…weren’t alot of the people that help ban prayer in school were also christians? (Not making accusations here, was just curious) EQUALITY is the key here.

Kitty, I appreciate the defense that the library staff were just following orders. That didn’t work at the Nuremburg trials and doesn’t work in US courts. When the policy itself is illegal or unconstitutional, then it is illegal to enforce the policy.

You wrote: Not because of religious reasons, its because of their policy

When their policy itself is religious, then they are guilty of religious discrimination. You see I read the court filings as well as web searched articles on it. The library had a specific policy forbidding religious meetings.

I can agree with you, though, if you mean that the nice people at the customer counter were not themselves bigots. The bureaucrats who wrote the policy excluding religious meetings may have been. Perhaps we can agree that the librarians were afraid to refuse to enforce an illegal policy, but were no bigots themselves. If so, then you have persuaded me. Congratulations, Kitty. We agree.

I am baffled by this:
QUOTE Call them bureaucrats, call them religious, call them Timmy…doesn’t matter, they are still people and you yourself should respect that.
UNQUOTE

Do you agree that human rights trumps and out weighs other people’s personal prejudices? I agree with you that the library staff are people. Yet you will agree that this fact (that they are people) does not entitle them to deny human rights? That is the issue here, human rights.

QUOTE
And by the way…weren’t alot of the people that help ban prayer in school were also christians? (Not making accusations here, was just curious) EQUALITY is the key here.
UNQUOTE

I don’t know if the judges who outlawed forced, composed prayer written by the state of New York which did not mention Jesus Christ were or were not Christians. I do know that prayers are not removed from schools… only state-ordered prayers. That is why the federal courts allow prayers at school events if the students elect to pray or at school board meetings when the school board so chooses to prayer. The same principle of free speech applies to meetings in reserved rooms in government buildings. Again free speech is the issue. As the federal courts said in a decision, “Religious speech is not second-class speech.”

I really think we are in agreement here. See what happens when you continue a courteous and respectful discussion? Thank you.

Well Decca, I think its a good idea. In my opinion, people tend to abuse their legal rights. We have to have limits. And in this one, I find that to be the case. And friend, don’t congradulate me or even thank me as if I met your approval. I just don’t trust you…you talk too much.

Kitty: QUOTE In my opinion, people tend to abuse their legal rights. We have to have limits UNQUOTE

Surely you are NOT saying that we should give up our constitutional rights just to please people who don’t like our religion! Since this country has always allowed prayer and religious speech in public buildings, why stop now just because someone dislikes our right to pray?

If I rented a public room for a political meeting and opened with a prayer by a visiting clergy, would the city shut us down? Or if I invited the meeting to pray for America after 9/11 as the President asked, would the city shut us down? No way! And if the city tried, I’d first try to negotiate, and if they still refused, then that is what the United States Constitution is for! Bring out the big guns from the lawyers’ offices.

“That didn’t work at the Nuremburg trials and doesn’t work in US courts.” Friend, it is a bit of a stretch to compare a war crimes tribunal with a dispute over a library’s community room! I don’t believe it was an issue of persecution because other Christians present in the library would have been disrupted by the singing and praying also.

A library is for silent research (and in the libraries that do allow music to be played there are specific sound-proofed rooms and booths for that to take place) and library users would not welcome anyone causing a disruption.

Interestingly enough, Friend, I doubt that if the situation were reversed and it was a Wiccan coven’s application that was turned down, you would recommend they fight the library’s policy. If it were a case of religious discrimination (which it definitely is not – the library knew that the group was a Christian community group when it initially agreed to the application and only withdrew the application once the library found out that the group intended to be noisy!) I would support the group in their endeavour to be better represented in their community. I dislike and fight religious discrimination for ALL groups, not just my own, but this is clearly not religious discrimination because all religious groups would be equally unwelcome if they held meetings involving religious songs and loud prayers.

Well said Decca. Your right there, ‘friend’ doesn’t believe Wicca to be a religion. Or lets say a group of satanist decide to have a meeting in your local library ‘friend’. What are you going to say then? Since you don’t believe their policy is to avoid conflict. Your wanting the LIBRARY to give up their constitutional rights.
Once again…your assuming the people in the library not liking your religion.. You don’t even know them. Decca is right too, I would say majority of library employees are Christians and doing their job. If they didn’t agree with that policy then they wouldn’t work there or they would file a discrimation suit themselves. People love to sue!
If you rented a public room ‘friend’ I would think they would be smart enough to tell you their ‘terms and conditions’ first hand. You have to have LIMITS!

Another poster tried to justify the libraries actions by saying the staff were just follwoing orders. I replied that legally this is unacceptable as a defense.

QUOTE
“That didn’t work at the Nuremburg trials and doesn’t work in US courts.”

QUOTE
Friend, it is a bit of a stretch to compare a war crimes tribunal… UNQUOTE

How do you like this refutation of the argument that it is somehow not religious discrimination when the staff are merely following policy–

“That argue didn’t work in race discrimination cases and it doesn’t work in religious discrimination cases. When the policy is illegal discrimination, then the acts of religious discrimination based upon the unlawful policy are still unlawful.”

I am glad to help you understand.

QUOTE
A library is for silent research (and in the libraries that do allow music to be played there are specific sound-proofed rooms and booths for that to take place) and library users would not welcome anyone causing a disruption.
UNQUOTE

Noise and disruption were NEVER the reasons for the ban on singing and prayer. I myself am the one who brought up this as a possible defense for the library.

The one and only reason the library gave for its actions was that the library banned all religious meetings… no mention of singing or of music.

The truly sad fact here folks is where did the policy come from. Policy is not make by those who work there, a library is generally state & fed funded. So add to the issues of seperation of church & state. The paperwoek to obtain such rooms has the policies written on them. So why all the out-rage when it comes back denied?

What is the problem of meeting at their church, or renting a room somwhere else? Where such a policy does not exist; hotels, resturants (most have meeting rooms),even asking store owners to rent an empty store & even meeting at a private home. Most libraries chanrge you for renting the room any way.

It seems to me that the issue is not discrimination, nor religious freedom.
It just seems to me that the issue is to shove their wants/beliefs on the hapless library patrons. A group singing & praying in a library, nope. Libraries are for quiet activities, that is their draw for most of us.

So I say take the other alternatives & leave these poor libraries alone.

“That didn’t work at the Nuremburg trials and doesn’t work in US courts.”

Comparing this to Nuremburg is sensationalistic and overblown. Telling someone they can’t sing and pray in a library is not the same thing as genocide. That’s just BS. The bottom line is this:

- There are thousands of other places they could have chosen, and I’m quite sure they were aware of the policy. It seems that they were looking for a lawsuit from the getgo.

- They would have denied a Muslim group, a Satanist group, or a Wiccan group just as quickly. So you can’t call it discrimination if the policy applies across the board.

- There is a time and a place for everything. In the same way that you wouldn’t want an impromtu political rally taking place in the middle of your church service within earshot, the people studying and working at the library don’t want to hear “Oh What A Friend We Have In Jesus” in the middle of their writing a thesis. I can guaruntee you that those rooms are not soundproof, and if someone interrupted my work for a religious meeting, I’d go ballistic.

In response to Friends comment “If they deny us the right to pray in a library today, they may deny us the right to pray at a high school graduation tomorrow. (Atucally they are even trying that too!)” at my son’s graduation last year there was prayer and it was strictly Christian in nature. Was every graduating student a Christian? Was every parent, friend, family member in the audience a Christian? Not by a long shot. I have nothing against prayer in public places, but in a case like this, it should be more inclusive than only allowing one path to be represented. How would you have felt if a Rabbi got up and offered a prayer as well, or perhaps a Wiccan Priestess?

IRIS: MY ANSWERS ARE IN BOLD TO SEPERATE THEM FROM YOUR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.
The truly sad fact here folks is where did the policy come from. Policy is not make by those who work there,
AND FOLKS WHO WORK THERE ARE BOUND BY THE US CONSTITUTION AND BY LAWS. YOUR “FOLKS WHO WORK THERE’ ARE NOT DICTATORS! THIS IS THE USA FOUNDED BY CHRISTIANS WHO RESPECTED FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY, AND FREEDOM OF FAITH.

a library is generally state & fed funded. So add to the issues of seperation of church & state.
WHAT SO-CALLED SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE? THAT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE CONSTITUTION! THERE IS ONLY AN ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AND GOVERNMENT IS PROHIBITED FROM DISCRIMINATING AGAINST RELIGIOUS FAITH, WHICH WAS WHAT THE LIBRARY IS GUILTY OF DOING.

The paperwoek to obtain such rooms has the policies written on them. So why all the out-rage when it comes back denied?
HAVE YOU SEEN THE PAPERWORK? IF THE POLICY IS ILLEGAL, WHY NOT CHANGE IT AND WHY NOT PROTEST IT.. IT USED TO BE THAT COLORED FOLKS COULD NOT EVEN USE SOME LIBRARIES. YOU ARE THE KIND OF PERSON WHO WOULD TELL MARTIN LUTHER KING TO OBEY THE LIBRARY POLICY. I PREFER TO FIGHT BACK AT ILLEGAL PERSECUTION.

What is the problem of meeting at their church, or renting a room somwhere else?
THE GROUP IS NOT A CHURCH. THEY MET AT THE LIBRARY BECAUSE IT IS CONVENIENT. WHY NOT? THEY PAY TAXES. YOU WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TOLD MARTIN LUTHER KING TO EAT AT COLORED ONLY DINERS.
Most libraries chanrge you for renting the room any way. IRRELEVANT
It seems to me that the issue is not discrimination, nor religious freedom.
WRONG. THE LIBRARY POLICY SPECIFICALLY DISCRIMINATES AGAINST RELIGION. IT SAID SO IN PRINT. HOW STUPID WAS THE LIBRARY FOR LETTING THE GO UNCHANGED UNTIL THE LAWSUIT.

It just seems to me that the issue is to shove their wants/beliefs on the hapless library patrons.
WRONG. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE LIBRARY PATRONS ARE FORCED TO ATTEND THE PRIVATE MEETING ROOM RESERVED BY OUTSIDE GROUPS. GET A GRIP! DON’T MAKE UP STUFF.
A group singing & praying in a library, nope. PRAYING YES. SINGING, OK IF IT DOES NOT DISTURB OTHERS NOT IN THE MEETING ROOM.
Libraries are for quiet activities, that is their draw for most of us
IN ORDER TO HAVE A CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE QUIETNESS POLICY, THE LIBRARY MUST HAVE SOMETHING MEASUREABLE LIKE A DECIBEL LEVEL. THEY DON’T. INSTEAD THEY MODIFIED THEIR ILLEGAL POLICY TO EXCLUDE ALL SINGING AND PRAYERS. I COULD AGREE WITH BANNING SINGING IF AND ONLY IF THE LIBRARY COULD PROVE THAT ANY SINGING WOULD DISTURB PATRONS. I COULD NEVER AGREE WITH THE BAN ON PRAYERS, WHICH CAN BE PRAYED QUIETLY.
So I say take the other alternatives & leave these poor libraries alone.
I SAY LET’S TAKE BACK OUR LIBRARIES, AND WE ARE… ONE VICTORY AT A TIME.

Wiccad,

>>> at my son’s graduation last year there was prayer and it was strictly Christian in nature. Was every graduating student a Christian? >> Was every parent, friend, family member in the audience a Christian? >>I have nothing against prayer in public places, but in a case like this, it should be more inclusive than only allowing one path to be represented. >> How would you have felt if a Rabbi got up and offered a prayer as well, or perhaps a Wiccan Priestess?

QUOTE“That didn’t work at the Nuremburg trials and doesn’t work in US courts.” Comparing this to Nuremburg is sensationalistic and overblown. Telling someone they can’t sing and pray in a library is not the same thing as genocide. UNQUOTE

Wrong. The comparison is valid. The excuse at Nuremberg is “We were only following orders.” That is the same excuse others on this forum tried to use in defense of violations of the religious citizens’ human rights. It still doesn’t work.

QUOTE- There are thousands of other places they could have chosen, and I’m quite sure they were aware of the policy. It seems that they were looking for a lawsuit from the getgo. UNQUOTE
Wrong. There are thousands of colored driinking fountains in the public library. Go to those. That didn’t work in the 1950s either. Same legal principle here. As for wanting a lawsuit, no. They want their constitutional rights respected.
QUOTE- They would have denied a Muslim group, a Satanist group, or a Wiccan group just as quickly. So you can’t call it discrimination if the policy applies across the board. UNQUOTE
You really need to read the US Constitution and federal and Ohio civil rights laws. The fact that ALL faiths are victims does not make the discrimination any less illegal. The US Constitution protects us Christians as well as other faiths. They are forbidden by federal and state law from discrimination against ANY faith.
QUOTE There is a time and a place for everything. In the same way that you wouldn’t want an impromtu political rally taking place in the middle of your church service within earshot, the people studying and working at the library don’t want to hear “Oh What A Friend We Have In Jesus” in the middle of their writing a thesis. I can guaruntee you that those rooms are not soundproof, and if someone interrupted my work for a religious meeting, I’d go ballistic. UNQUOTE
Again you are mistaken about the meeting. It was not in the public rooms, but in a private room. There is not evidence that singing could be heard outside the room. And even if singing could be heard, prayer would not. The library broke the law and refused to correct itself when given two chances.
Hope this help clarify the matter for you.

As a heathen and an Asatruar for nineteen years I have little sympathy for Christian groups and if this were about having organized prayer meetings in a school, I’d be 100% against the CCV.

But this is a library and, at least theoretically, anyone who is there is there because they want to be. It’s a public building and as such, community groups have a right to request use of the spaces within.

If the library administration felt the praying and singing might be problem they should have presented that concern to the leadership of CCV. They should have granted provisional use of the meeting rooms with the understanding that if the noise they produced was at a level where it was a disturbance to the other patrons, the library staff would inform them and they would curtail them immeadiately. I doubt that praying would generate much noise but singing might.

The only other reason for denying them space would be if their presence there would be expected to draw protestors that would disrupt other patrons peaceful use of the facility. Since this wasn’t mentioned I’ll assume that wasn’t part of the issue.