Shouldn't this be in the story research forum? A mod can kick it over to TIO when it REALLY heats up!
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?
