Hypothetical Church and State Question

[Diana Hignutt]

Yeah, I'm in one of my sinister/mischevious moods today. I thought of this a few days ago. In the township where I live they moved all the inconveniently placed (i.e from a development POV) historic buildings to one spot, now called "Olde Stone House Village". There's an old house from the 1750's, an old post office, other old structures including an old church. The township owns the property. They allow people to arrange to use the church for religous ceremonies like weddings.

What, exactly, could they do, if, say, a Satanist requested to use the church for a nice little desecration ceremony? Nothing would be damaged. The Satanists would be respectful of the township's property. Could they prevent the Satanists from using the church? I almost wish I was a Satanist just to see the hubbub. Well, no, I really don't wish I was a Satanist, but I wish I knew some willing to try to use the church.

Interesting? Stupid? What have I been smoking? (nothing, I'm at work). What do you think? I may try to squeeze this into a novel I'm working on.

[Kitty Pryde]

I think you're right that the town would have to let people of any religion use the property. I also agree that it would be a good plot or subplot in a novel. Small town + traditional values versus satanists with their pesky legal rights.

[Contemplative]

I think this is a compelling example why the state should never be allowed to own houses of worship. The Satanists are an out-there case, though a valid one; something more likely to become an issue is if the church was wanted to host a gay marriage. A church should never be forced to host a ceremony which it deems blasphemous to its faith (even if the only reason it's blasphemous is that the parishioners are narrow-minded). A state must never fund or support any organization which discriminates on racial, sexual, orientational, etc. lines. These moral axioms are not compatible within the same entity, and I'm not comfortable denying either one.

If the state does own a church, for whatever reason, objective morality and non-discriminatory policy must trump religious mores. There's no reason to deny Satanists access that can't also be used to deny a gay couple marriage access, or what have you.

[Contemplative]

As an addenda, I'd like to add that I find the idea that a church can be generic to all faiths utterly ridiculous. What Wiccan or Hindu wants to hold ministry in a building with a giant wood cross and a stained-glass image of Michael Archangel?

If a state is buying a building that is explicitly Christian in its architecture and presenting it as an even gift to all peoples, that's a farce to begin with, even if they don't disciminate in whom they allow to use it.

[MoonWriter]

IMO, a state owned building available for lease should be available to any group, and the terms of the lease should be consistent.

[SPMiller]

I can understand the state owning and maintaining certain churches of historical value, but I fail to see why it should be able to respect an establishment of religion. Therefore, if we're going to allow the state to own designated centers of worship (which I don't support in the first place except in the case above), then we should not allow the state to discriminate based on the religious beliefs of those who wish to use the property. Seems cut-and-dry to me.

[Kitty Pryde]

I think this is a compelling example why the state should never be allowed to own houses of worship. The Satanists are an out-there case, though a valid one; something more likely to become an issue is if the church was wanted to host a gay marriage. A church should never be forced to host a ceremony which it deems blasphemous to its faith (even if the only reason it's blasphemous is that the parishioners are narrow-minded). A state must never fund or support any organization which discriminates on racial, sexual, orientational, etc. lines. These moral axioms are not compatible within the same entity, and I'm not comfortable denying either one.

If the state does own a church, for whatever reason, objective morality and non-discriminatory policy must trump religious mores. There's no reason to deny Satanists access that can't also be used to deny a gay couple marriage access, or what have you.

But it's just a building, it's not a building plus a preacher (or w/e) plus a bunch of worshippers (AFAIK). So it doesn't own a full church, just a church building.

[Williebee]

a Satanist requested to use the church for a nice little desecration ceremony

This, to me, is the fun part of the question. If a religious, or otherwise, activity resulted in the ground being no longer consecrated, would that be enough to say "no"?

Or would the host organization just apply part of the security deposit to "restoring" the facility to it's pre event state?

[SPMiller]

As an addenda, I'd like to add that I find the idea that a church can be generic to all faiths utterly ridiculous. What Wiccan or Hindu wants to hold ministry in a building with a giant wood cross and a stained-glass image of Michael Archangel?

If a state is buying a building that is explicitly Christian in its architecture and presenting it as an even gift to all peoples, that's a farce to begin with, even if they don't disciminate in whom they allow to use it.This is also an excellent point. Almost all churches are symbolic to some degree of the religion for which they're built. (Exception: buildings used as churches that were not initially designed as such.)

And yeah, I know very little of Satanism, so it'd be nice to know that the desecration will not inflict any permanent damage on the building in question.

[Diana Hignutt]

This is also an excellent point. Almost all churches are symbolic to some degree of the religion for which they're built. (Exception: buildings used as churches that were not initially designed as such.)

And yeah, I know very little of Satanism, so it'd be nice to know that the desecration will not inflict any permanent damage on the building in question.

I, also, know very little about Satanism, so for the sake of argument, I'm assuming that the desecration will in no way physically damage the property. I don't even know if real Satanists have desecration ceremonies, but it sounds like something one would think a Satanist would do.

[Williebee]

I don't think that a Satanist would see it as a desecration. At least, no more than the Catholic Priest who comes in behind them to consecrate the site would see what he is doing as desecrating the Satanist's worship space.

[Diana Hignutt]

I don't think that a Satanist would see it as a desecration. At least, no more than the Catholic Priest who comes in behind them to consecrate the site would see what he is doing as desecrating the Satanist's worship space.

Well, darn it, in my novel, they'll do desecrations, whether they like it or not.

[Cyia]

The township in question is on shaky ground. By maintaining the property as a religious facility, they're giving state approval to the religion(s) in question.

Even if they don't discriminate based on the religion of the person using the facility, and even if the facility has no outward appearances of being a particular denomination's building (say it has generic kaleidoscope stained glass windows and no steeple), the moment they allow state sanctioned use by some parties, they've just made the state disregard the beliefs of another group.

In certain cases, worship services can't be held in sites used by other religions.

By getting the state involved in it at all, they've - by default - alienated a segment of the population with state funds on a religious basis.

And say three couples wanted to use the facility at the same time. Is it first come, first serve, or would a church wedding, a secular wedding and a hand fasting be given the same consideration?

[GeorgeK]

I, also, know very little about Satanism, so for the sake of argument, I'm assuming that the desecration will in no way physically damage the property. I don't even know if real Satanists have desecration ceremonies, but it sounds like something one would think a Satanist would do.

It would depend upon the sect of Satanists. Some are true believers, some are in it for the shock value. Desecration would be to make it an unholy place. The magic would have been drained from the relics and so it would be damaged on a spiritual level. A simple blessing would not be enough to consecrate the grounds.

[Williebee]

Well, darn it, in my novel, they'll do desecrations, whether they like it or not.

You are the Goddess and Omnipotent Being of your world. Rock on! :)



"I break with thee, I break with thee, I break with thee. And then we throw poo poo on their shoes." -- Steve Martin, Wild and Crazy Guy.

ETA: Oh yeah, and what George said. :)

[robeiae]

But it's just a building, it's not a building plus a preacher (or w/e) plus a bunch of worshippers (AFAIK). So it doesn't own a full church, just a church building.
Right.

[Kitty Pryde]

anyone else seeing a hilarious ad for "Satanic Jewelry Specialist imosh.com" at the top of this thread? LOL!

[Bird of Prey]

Yeah, I'm in one of my sinister/mischevious moods today. I thought of this a few days ago. In the township where I live they moved all the inconveniently placed (i.e from a development POV) historic buildings to one spot, now called "Olde Stone House Village". There's an old house from the 1750's, an old post office, other old structures including an old church. The township owns the property. They allow people to arrange to use the church for religous ceremonies like weddings.

What, exactly, could they do, if, say, a Satanist requested to use the church for a nice little desecration ceremony? Nothing would be damaged. The Satanists would be respectful of the township's property. Could they prevent the Satanists from using the church? I almost wish I was a Satanist just to see the hubbub. Well, no, I really don't wish I was a Satanist, but I wish I knew some willing to try to use the church.

Interesting? Stupid? What have I been smoking? (nothing, I'm at work). What do you think? I may try to squeeze this into a novel I'm working on.

"Hypothetically," I think you're pushing some Christians to the limit. Maybe that's the point, but I have a hard time with it, in that there's no reason for it.

A church was built for a specific reason. It's an historic building owned by the state, yes, but that doesn't preclude the simple fact that it has a specific heritage and a specific legacy in New Jersey and in America. I think of the people who built it and those that worshipped in it for perhaps a century or more, and think of what they would have wanted - could they say it - and my guess is they would have wanted their house of worship at least respected. These people are ancestors. And their legacy as Christians continue, along with some very good works ongoing today. It's a heritage that should be respected, not spit on.

[Bird of Prey]

This is also an excellent point. Almost all churches are symbolic to some degree of the religion for which they're built. (Exception: buildings used as churches that were not initially designed as such.)

And yeah, I know very little of Satanism, so it'd be nice to know that the desecration will not inflict any permanent damage on the building in question.

Permanent damage?? If we were talking about a synogogue right now, and talking about a group of people wanting to "desecrate" a synogogue. . . well, I doubt anybody here would be so blase.

[SPMiller]

Well, I fail to see how a goat sacrifice (do Satanists actually do that?) would permanently damage a house of worship of any sort, provided that the blood/etc. isn't allowed to drain onto the floor.

[Fullback]

It might make a better irony if, unknown to the defenders of the church "legacy," the church was a venue for witch trials. Bird of Prey's head would explode in a halo of heritage. :)

[Bird of Prey]

Well, I fail to see how a goat sacrifice (do Satanists actually do that?) would permanently damage a house of worship of any sort, provided that the blood/etc. isn't allowed to drain onto the floor.

I consider it a hate crime, and I would think it would be treated accordingly, along with cruelty to animals.

[AMCrenshaw]

Does anyone know anything about Satanism?


amc

[AMCrenshaw]

But it's just a building, it's not a building plus a preacher (or w/e) plus a bunch of worshippers (AFAIK). So it doesn't own a full church, just a church building.

oh stop.



amc

[SPMiller]

Does anyone know anything about Satanism?


amcYeah, some, but mostly of the strain headed by LaVey. That's hardly the only branch, however.

[AMCrenshaw]

Yeah, some, but mostly of the strain headed by LaVey. That's hardly the only branch, however.

this is the extent of my knowledge as well-- though i have to say that i wasn't impressed by lavey's satanic bible.

amc

[AMCrenshaw]

anyway, the u.s. government can fund religions, right, so long as it doesn't endorse any singular one. so long as they keep it open to all religious and nonreligious peeps, there should be no problem. i don't think a couple of satanists would do more damage than say a bunch of 16-18 year old amish who've been let out into the world (devil's playground style).

amc

[Bird of Prey]

anyway, the u.s. government can fund religions, right, so long as it doesn't endorse any singular one. so long as they keep it open to all religious and nonreligious peeps, there should be no problem. i don't think a couple of satanists would do more damage than say a bunch of 16-18 year old amish who've been let out into the world (devil's playground style).

amc


The word "desecration" was used. Now is that the intent or not? And what does that have to do with a "16 - 18 year old Amish?" I know you're treating it lightly and with a little humor but let me tell you: desecration of a church has nothing to do with a "16 - 18 year old Amish" sowing wild oats. . . .

[wannawrite]

[quote=Contemplative;3564333]As an addenda, I'd like to add that I find the idea that a church can be generic to all faiths utterly ridiculous. What Wiccan or Hindu wants to hold ministry in a building with a giant wood cross and a stained-glass image of Michael Archangel?

****

I would. I have been a solitary Wiccan for over a dozen years, and I don't knowingly discriminate against any faith. I think Christianity is a beautiful religion, and the cross is a lovely symbol of sacrafice and love.

[AMCrenshaw]

The word "desecration" was used.

and i'm talking about damage of physical property-- not metaphysical ego.



amc

eta:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0293088/

[Bird of Prey]

and i'm talking about damage of physical property-- not metaphysical ego.


amc

Let me repeat: the word "desecration" was used. That is a word with a specific intent. It has nothing to do with "metaphysical EGO."
Here's Wiki:

Desecration (also called desacralization or desanctification) is the act of depriving something of its sacred character -- or the disrespectful or contemptuous treatment of that which is held to be sacred by a group or individual.

So, intent is established, is it not? So what we have here is an open and public display to demonstrate: hatred. A specific religion is the aggregate of many people. Those people are vulnerable to people who would like to think them inferior and therefore use them as a way to demonstrate their own superiority vis a vis contempt.

[AMCrenshaw]

i've noticed you get up-in-arms about very little, BoP.

but, since you've cited wiki, let's consider some implications: let's make something not-sacred. satanists are profoundly beyond sacred and profane (which i'm sure you knew), so eliminating the "sacred character" of any thing is not necessarily done out of contempt or disrespect, but out of self-assertion and self-indulgence which are all mind you different things. the reference to amish 16-18 year olds is simple: what was sacred before was their bodies (and the traditions of the community) and into-the-world it experiences deep profanity, wouldn't you say? from that point of view everything i said makes sense-- but who cares, I was light from the beginning and I'm light now.


amc

[SPMiller]

Disrespect and contempt do not necessarily equal physical damage.

I kinda figured the indistinct and poorly-defined nature of desecration would throw a wrench in the discussion.

[AMCrenshaw]

I'm assuming that the desecration will in no way physically damage the property.



amc

[SPMiller]

Devil's advocate would really take on a more literal meaning in the context of this thread, wouldn't it?

[AMCrenshaw]

Devil's advocate would really take on a more literal meaning in the context of this thread, wouldn't it?

why yes it would



amc

[AMCrenshaw]

Disrespect and contempt do not necessarily equal physical damage.

and they don't necessarily equal desecration either. i thought of desecration as the former definition, rather than the latter, all things considered. acts of desecration are seen by certain satanists as...let's say... cleansing? the idea being to transgress in order to reveal the inherent emptiness of our imaginary boundaries to begin with.


amc

[SPMiller]

and they don't necessarily equal desecration either. i thought of desecration as the former definition, rather than the latter, all things considered. acts of desecration are seen by certain satanists as...let's say... cleansing? the idea being to transgress in order to reveal the inherent emptiness of our imaginary boundaries to begin with.


amcRight, and presumably, the act wouldn't be so much anti-God as pro-individual/pro-worldly. I'm just... you know, taking things to the extreme, where they'd still be okay, IMO.

[Bird of Prey]

i've noticed you get up-in-arms about very little, BoP.

but, since you've cited wiki, let's consider some implications: let's make something not-sacred. satanists are profoundly beyond sacred and profane (which i'm sure you knew), so eliminating the "sacred character" of any thing is not necessarily done out of contempt or disrespect, but out of self-assertion and self-indulgence which are all mind you different things. the reference to amish 16-18 year olds is simple: what was sacred before was their bodies and into-the-world it experiences deep profanity, wouldn't you say, from that point of view everything i said makes sense-- but who cares, I was light from the beginning and I'm light now.


amc

First off, I don't get "up in arms" about all that much anymore, but this trendy and ill-founded arrogance - of using every conceivable subterfuge or blatant avenue to sneer at and/or degrade Christians or make them uncomfortable - has more than run its course for me. It has become a vile and pathetic attempt at bigotry.

I find it dangerous to continuously leave unchallenged somebody's venom regarding another's spiritual belief system. Christians have become the latest group to fashionably insult or challenge because the group as a whole is not dangerous. But be that as it may, I despise rhetoric that is intended to cut people to the quick for their faith, for no other reason than to try to establish intellectual superiority and thus to achieve some bizarre grand slam snobbery.

Whether it be Islam or Judaism or Christianity or Hinduism or any vast number of faiths, they all deserve to be treated with RESPECT. O.K?

If you want to argue POLITICS, do it. But when I suspect people trying to tie politics to religion, I see true ignorance. And I more than suspect that political gnashing is what so much of this is about.

[dolores haze]

What, exactly, could they do, if, say, a Satanist requested to use the church for a nice little desecration ceremony? Nothing would be damaged. The Satanists would be respectful of the township's property. Could they prevent the Satanists from using the church? I almost wish I was a Satanist just to see the hubbub. Well, no, I really don't wish I was a Satanist, but I wish I knew some willing to try to use the church.

Interesting? Stupid? What have I been smoking? (nothing, I'm at work). What do you think? I may try to squeeze this into a novel I'm working on.

Why not pick up the phone and ask them? The church's upkeep is seen to with taxpayer money, right? The building belongs to the community? I'm really quite interested if your local tax-paying satanist sect would get to use the church.

[robeiae]

People keep putting stuff on Morrison's grave. That's desecration, in my view. I don't care what their reasoning is.

Don't know that this impacts the discussion, but I just wanted to point it out...

[Bird of Prey]

http://www.netcom.es/nora/Pam5.jpg

[robeiae]

Excellent pic, BoP.

[AngelRoseDarke]

LaVey's group would not want to use the building. Their current leaders are urging against meeting in groups. The move is toward solitary practice.

The rest would probably want to use the church to hold meetings and rituals. The government would have to let them by law. Holy ground is required for some of their rituals. Most sects would not want to desecrate the land though, has they would want to be able to use it again. BTW, only a very small group practice animal sacrifice. Blood for rituals is usually donated freely by members of the group.

I have a little experience in this realm. :)

[Bird of Prey]

LaVey's group would not want to use the building. Their current leaders are urging against meeting in groups. The move is toward solitary practice.

The rest would probably want to use the church to hold meetings and rituals. The government would have to let them by law. Holy ground is required for some of their rituals. Most sects would not want to desecrate the land though, has they would want to be able to use it again. BTW, only a very small group practice animal sacrifice. Blood for rituals is usually donated freely by members of the group.

I have a little experience in this realm. :)


Re. animal sacrifice. I hope it's a very small group and that they're all arrested because that's barbaric. I can't imagine causing suffering like that because I "enjoyed" or found some kind of justification or spiritual release or whatever the fuck in watching an animal suffer and die.

[AngelRoseDarke]

Re. animal sacrifice. I hope it's a very small group and that they're all arrested because that's barbaric. I can't imagine causing suffering like that because I "enjoyed" or found some kind of justification or spiritual release or whatever the fuck in watching an animal suffer and die.

The animal sacrifice deal has roots in some swamp magick rituals which require the slaughter of a chicken or goat. I believe there are also some voodoo rituals that require this. In the last decade or so there has been a big movement to end the practice, and most sects (across the board) have done so. In most places it is now punishable by law, and most groups don't feel it's worth it.

BTW, the purpose of the sacrifice was to make an offering of the soul to the god or gods. Some ancient religions used humans for that purpose.

[Bird of Prey]

BTW, the purpose of the sacrifice was to make an offering of the soul to the god or gods. Some ancient religions used humans for that purpose.


I'm well aware and it makes my stomach turn. And thank you for the prior info.

[AMCrenshaw]

but this trendy and ill-founded arrogance - of using every conceivable subterfuge or blatant avenue to sneer at and/or degrade Christians or make them uncomfortable - has more than run its course for me. It has become a vile and pathetic attempt at bigotry.

do you know what my avatar is? it's a logo that means, "swords into plowshares," which is, as you know, a christian peacemakers' symbol. although i am not christian, my closest and dearest friends, nearly all of them, are. don't mistake a joke for bigotry.

as far as confusing politics and religion is concerned: the law recognizes property much more clearly than it does the "sacred". i'd personally prefer if you didn't speak to me about me specifically in general terms. that, my fellow AW'er, is disrespectful.

and that's about enough for this kind of conversation, i think. sorry you've misunderstood me. sorry if i've not been clear.

amc

[Diana Hignutt]

I appreciate the response to this thread. I just want to remind everybody that there are no real Satanists planning on requesting use of the church, to my knowledge. The idea came into my head after receiving a schedule of township events in the mail, as it referenced the church's public availability (on a first come basis). I have a novel with a political slant I've been working on, and I will slip this in there. Your responses have helped me tremendously.

I apologize if anyone was offended by the nature of this thread. To me, it seemed like an interesting intellectual exercise. And, I agree with those that say the township stepped into a potential mess when they assumed ownership of a church.

And to my dear, BoP, since some of your (relatively mild) invective was directed at me for starting such a sinister thread, I further apologize, and concede that there may be something to your interpretation of my motives. But, I want to say that I know and love many good Christian people, and have nothing but respect for the teachings of Jesus of Nazereth. However, I have been (and I suspect, will be again) persecuted by some Christian groups, simply for existing, and venturing into the public spotlight. I do hold a grudge for this. I do not apologize for the way I feel.

And, further, to remind you that your freedom of religion can only exist if I have mine intact too. Too many Christian groups are trying to usurp political process and the rights of others based on their beliefs. This upsets me as well. I will fight this trend in anyway I see fit.

[Bird of Prey]

I appreciate the response to this thread. I just want to remind everybody that there are no real Satanists planning on requesting use of the church, to my knowledge. The idea came into my head after receiving a schedule of township events in the mail, as it referenced the church's public availability (on a first come basis). I have a novel with a political slant I've been working on, and I will slip this in there. Your responses have helped me tremendously.

I apologize if anyone was offended by the nature of this thread. To me, it seemed like an interesting intellectual exercise. And, I agree with those that say the township stepped into a potential mess when they assumed ownership of a church.

And to my dear, BoP, since some of your (relatively mild) invective was directed at me for starting such a sinister thread, I further apologize, and concede that there may be something to your interpretation of my motives. But, I want to say that I know and love many good Christian people, and have nothing but respect for the teachings of Jesus of Nazereth. However, I have been (and I suspect, will be again) persecuted by some Christian groups, simply for existing, and venturing into the public spotlight. I do hold a grudge for this. I do not apologize for the way I feel.

And, further, to remind you that your freedom of religion can only exist if I have mine intact too. Too many Christian groups are trying to usurp political process and the rights of others based on their beliefs. This upsets me as well. I will fight this trend in anyway I see fit.

Again, Diana, if you can separate religion from politics, and express yourself through the latter, I support most of your positions, as you know. Great post.

[Contemplative]

To be clear, I don't think Satanists should be able to desecrate Christian churches. I do think there is a valid spiritual meaning to some Satanic desecration-style ceremonies -- it's a ritualized rebellion against dogma and a refusal to embrace or tolerate the cultic awe they feel mainstream religion tries to inspire -- but their faith's rights end where the Christians' buildings begin.

My point was that the state cannot be allowed to privilege one ideology or faith over another in its official policy.

I'm not against the idea that Christianity is one of our social norms. I think that's fine, and part of our heritage, for the same reason that I think a heteronormative society can also be a gay-friendly one.

But this is about the state actually funding a historic church, and then having to decide between engaging in religious discrimination or allowing the desecration and thereby destroying the value of the thing they're paying for (because really, a church has absolutely no value beyond its quality of sacredness in the eyes of the faithful who gather there, save the real estate value a plain building of its type would have -- and the government isn't trying to preserve that.)

[Williebee]

But this is about the state actually funding a historic church, and then having to decide between engaging in religious discrimination or allowing the desecration and thereby destroying the value of the thing they're paying for (because really, a church has absolutely no value beyond its quality of sacredness in the eyes of the faithful who gather there, save the real estate value a plain building of its type would have -- and the government isn't trying to preserve that.)

This brings up an interesting point that was... assumed, I guess. The idea that there is anything to desecrate. The building was moved. The original site was not. Would the building still be sacred? If not, did the city allow anyone in to re-consecrate or sanctify it after the move?

[Plot Device]

A friend of mine got married in a very old and very cute church building in Upstate New York (I was a bridesmaid btw) which used to be a Quaker meeting house about 150 years ago. The deed of the building --a deed dating back 150 years-- specifically mandated that no musical instruments were to be used inside the building. So to this day that church only sings a capella music. So when she got married, they used the church's sound system to amplify a pre-recorded music tape of organ music performing the Pachelbel Canon in D. I asked her if it was possible for a lawsuit to be launched to overturn that aspect of the deed and finally allow actual instruments. She shrugged and said no one cared because no one in that church even wanted musiscal instruments and preferred the a capella style. MAYBE if a lawsuit were launched it could be overturned, but such a move hasn't been tested yet (at least not in THAT church).

I would think that if the deed of this government-owned church building specifically forbade several very clearly delineated activities, they could legally prevent a Satanic group from doing anything weird in the building, regardless as to whether it's private or government owned. Also, if the building was ONLY available to the public for "weddings and funerals" then a "desecration ceremony" doesn't seem to fit the bill of what is allowable.

Meanwhile, a lot of very picturesque churches in very picturesque locales all over the world are constantly bombarded with requests from total strangers to lease their buildings for weddings. But in order to avoid weirdness and conflicts, these churches blanketly deny weddings to anyone who is not a church member.

[Summonere]

The township may own the building (in this case, a church) but mere ownership does not allow it to infringe upon the exercise of any right therein, as it would were it to allow one group to meet in said building but not another.

Township ownership of a church does not constitute law-making, and therefore is permissible. That's why the following...


I can understand the state [sic] owning and maintaining certain churches of historical value, but I fail to see why it should be able to respect an establishment of religion.



The township in question is on shaky ground. By maintaining the property as a religious facility, they're giving state approval to the religion(s) in question.


...are incorrect.

Quoting the relevant portion of the first amendment, bolding the most pertinent part for redundancy's sake:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Since this is the law of the land, townships are not at liberty to contravene it. That which they do that does not make such law is okay. Even if that means owning a building which happens to be a church.

Thus your hypothetical would have to be allowed in case X if it were allowed in case Y. A township-owned building is merely a township-owned building, and as such remains available to all who wish to visit, no matter the historical status of the building.

As a source of dramatic conflict, yours seems like an excellent idea.

(My study of law was only ancillary to my primary studies, which covered a very limited spectrum of law, so this opinion, not even a legal one, isn't worth a jellybean.)

[Williebee]

nuts... and I so wanted a jelly bean. :)

[Summonere]

nuts... and I so wanted a jelly bean. :)

So do I. Maybe I should have left that last part out...

[Contemplative]

I would think that if the deed of this government-owned church building specifically forbade several very clearly delineated activities, they could legally prevent a Satanic group from doing anything weird in the building, regardless as to whether it's private or government owned. Also, if the building was ONLY available to the public for "weddings and funerals" then a "desecration ceremony" doesn't seem to fit the bill of what is allowable.

Isn't this pretty much the textbook definition of institutional discrimination? Making laws targeting one group implicitly instead of textually, to persecute that group? The same argument has been made with regard to blacks and Marajuana legalization -- many stronger drugs that are European cultural traditions rather than African ones are legal, so (some people believe) the war on drugs can be seen as racial discrimination.

I have faith in Satanists to host a wedding in a church in such a matter that Christians would feel the church had been desecrated anyway, all while staying within the letter of the law.

[benbradley]

Shouldn't this be in the story research forum? A mod can kick it over to TIO when it REALLY heats up! :D
Yeah, I'm in one of my sinister/mischevious moods today. I thought of this a few days ago. In the township where I live they moved all the inconveniently placed (i.e from a development POV) historic buildings to one spot, now called "Olde Stone House Village". There's an old house from the 1750's, an old post office, other old structures including an old church. The township owns the property. They allow people to arrange to use the church for religous ceremonies like weddings.

What, exactly, could they do, if, say, a Satanist requested to use the church for a nice little desecration ceremony? Nothing would be damaged. The Satanists would be respectful of the township's property. Could they prevent the Satanists from using the church? I almost wish I was a Satanist just to see the hubbub. Well, no, I really don't wish I was a Satanist, but I wish I knew some willing to try to use the church.

Interesting? Stupid? What have I been smoking? (nothing, I'm at work). What do you think? I may try to squeeze this into a novel I'm working on.
Yes, Satanists or even secular groups should be able to rent and use the building for their purposes, consistent with not causing physical damage.

Some sort of spiritual "desecration" would only be a problem for one of the other groups renting the facility (I won't call it a church at this point - it's only a church while Christians hold a service in it, and it's only a synagogue when it's holding a Jewish service, etc.). The local government officials, IF they're properly doing their job (which might be a plot point...), should rent to the Satanist group without batting an eye. It might then be the Christian group that gets upset when they hear about this other use of the facility. You then have the problem of "spiritual desecration" which the government cannot by law recognize. The Christian group can object and complain, but their only real recourse is to grin and bear it, or find another place to have services.
I, also, know very little about Satanism, so for the sake of argument, I'm assuming that the desecration will in no way physically damage the property. I don't even know if real Satanists have desecration ceremonies, but it sounds like something one would think a Satanist would do.
In spite of growing up in a Baptist church, I don't have enough enough knowledge of Christianity to say, but I would imagine they would consider a Satanic group meeting at the same facility to be enough of a desecration.
Well, darn it, in my novel, they'll do desecrations, whether they like it or not.

The township in question is on shaky ground. By maintaining the property as a religious facility, they're giving state approval to the religion(s) in question.

Even if they don't discriminate based on the religion of the person using the facility, and even if the facility has no outward appearances of being a particular denomination's building (say it has generic kaleidoscope stained glass windows and no steeple), the moment they allow state sanctioned use by some parties, they've just made the state disregard the beliefs of another group.

In certain cases, worship services can't be held in sites used by other religions.
It would then be the potential renters' responsibility to see who else rents (or has rented), and decide if it's within their beliefs to have services there. I presume the names of the groups renting there would be public knowledge.

By getting the state involved in it at all, they've - by default - alienated a segment of the population with state funds on a religious basis.
This might make an interesting case to take to the Supreme Court, but in my view it's the responsibility of the potential renters to evaluate the suitability of a facility for their purposes. I don't see how the government could be held liable if some previous use of the facility is deemed "incompatible" with the religious beliefs of a potential renter.

But I can see a possible result that due to such a disagreement, the local government makes a rule that the facility cannot be rented for religious services, but I'm not sure that would be legal.
And say three couples wanted to use the facility at the same time. Is it first come, first serve, or would a church wedding, a secular wedding and a hand fasting be given the same consideration?
My understanding is facility rentals, public or private, are always first come, first served.
I consider it a hate crime, and I would think it would be treated accordingly, along with cruelty to animals.
So an animal sacrifice in a religious service would have twice the sentence of a "regular" cruelty-to-animals charge?

[Bird of Prey]

So an animal sacrifice in a religious service would have twice the sentence of a "regular" cruelty-to-animals charge?

As far as I'm concerned, life imprisonment.

[AMCrenshaw]

As far as I'm concerned, life imprisonment.

I'm never too certain how well that works.



AMC

[frimble3]

If the township 'bought' the church, either someone sold it, or it was abandoned. If it's original congregation had wanted it to remain a church of their faith, they should have hung onto it. As far as I can see, it's now just a church-shaped building, like those quaint, secular 'chapels' some places build just for the wedding trade. Doesn't the abandoning denomination usually deconsecrate the church when they leave, turning out the spiritual lights? Esp. as they will no longer be around to see that it's appropriately tended?

[Andrew]

The building should be available for any group.