Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Hhhm. Let me rephrase. Anger is OK. Letting it get the better of me, letting it cause me to condemn others out of hand, is not. *That's* what I'm trying to keep from doing.

Condemning ideas is one thing. I confess I let that slip into condemning people sometimes.

As wechurchy youth used to say in the late '70s-early '80s:

PBPGINFWMY.
 

Accusing Librarians of being against "Free Speech" is really showing somewhat of an ignorance of their reason for being.
Now would FTOF be really concerned about this if it were a local Muslim group that wanted to use the community room to worship and pray five times a day. Perhaps so, but I think they might be on the other side of the issue then.
Americans always want to have their cake and eat it too and not pay for it in the first place.
We can be a silly people.
 

Silly? Obtuse is a better word.
 

What if they were Homosexual christians who all had Library Cards?

Would it be okay then?
 

Clyde Snodgrass?
Is that you Billy Clyde? Did you know that the cops are still looking for you. You still have that old blue 74 Datsun pickup we used on the job back in 89? I'll bet that sucker has over 600,000 miles on her. By the way, Amy says you haven't sent any child support in several months. Better lay low boy.
Good to know that the worms don't have you yet.
 

I have to disagree with ER, and I'll match his once-off calmness by being respectful as well.

This panel of the 9th Court is dead wrong, in terms of precedent and in terms of law, and

Most of the relevant USSC decisions have been about schools, but the same precedent applies here: governments are not permitted to discriminate against religious groups (like clubs) in access to public facilities. If a school permits a glee club to meet after school, they can't say no to a voluntary prayer group. One of the interesting things about the First Amendment is that governments (with the 14th amendment, at whatever level) have no discretion in regards to religious practice - unless allowing the Christian groups use of the room constitutes "establishment" - and courts have rightly said similar activities do not, then the groups must have equal access with other groups.

I am surprised to find myself a more moderate antiestablishmentarian than you are, but perhaps DrL sensed this tendency when he allowed me into the John Spruce Society. I DO like that my once-and-future neighborhood school, blue county in a blue state, allows some buildingless Christian church (some predominantly Asian denomination) to meet there on Sundays.

I will agree that I seldom see any of the Christian Right being as vehement (and consistent) in its defense of minority religion rights. Despite agreeing with the church's attorney, I'd be more pleased, if surprised, if he hadn't merely said:

"Christian community groups should not be treated any differently than other community groups,"

but:

"Christian, Wiccan, Satanist, and atheist community groups should not be treated any differently than other community groups,"
 

I think my overarching argument, actually, is more with the church than the state. There's some irony, or something, in that "religion," which has rare, spelled-out positive rights in the Constitution, wants to be treated under the law like any other community organization.
 

The rights spelled out for religion in the Constitution are no more positive than those for speech and assembly: "free exercise thereof." In fact, one could argue that with the expanded definition of Constitutional "speech" we enjoy now, the First Amendment protection of religion becomes one of redundant but not unwelcome emphasis. The Establishment clause is the unique element, an important protection in several ways, and there is no equivalent. Although it would be amusing to think of a government that wasn't allowed to assemble or speak.

Man, two civil posts in a row. Im embarrassed.
 

Oops. Yer bandanna slipped there, pardner. :-)