Religions > Atheism > Bill aimed at stifling anti-LDS protesters is full of holes
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"desertphile@hot mail. com Desertphile, American Patriot" |
| Date: |
04 Mar 2005 06:34:54 PM |
| Object: |
Bill aimed at stifling anti-LDS protesters is full of holes |
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/10309
The Daily Herald,
Feb. 14, 2005
www.harktheherald.com
Rep. Douglas Aagard, R-Kaysville, is pushing a new state law aimed
at restricting protesters at the LDS Church's General Conferences.
To make the bill seem broadly based, he went beyond restrictions
on protests at a "place of worship" and extended the rules to
protesters at a "health care facility. "
Based on laws limiting protests at abortion clinics, House Bill
131 would make it a Class-B misdemeanor to block access to any
health care facility or place of worship by creating a 100-foot
buffer zone around the entrance. Inside that zone, protesters
would be required to stay at least 8 feet away from another person
unless the person consents to receiving literature or hearing the
protester's message.
In addition to the criminal penalties, the bill would allow
lawsuits against protesters by those who are accosted.
Aagard said he's trying to do something about the so-called street
preachers who have become more strident in recent years at LDS
conferences. At a recent General Conference, two attendees were
arrested after getting into scuffles with protesters who were
desecrating LDS temple garments.
But Salt Lake City has already taken action to solve the problem
of protesters picking fights with conference attendees. In October
it designated protest zones, or boxes, in which protesters were
required to stand so as not to interfere with the free movement of
people entering and exiting the conference center.
And it seems to have worked well -- no October surprises. We'll
get another read on the effectiveness of Salt Lake's ordinance
during April's LDS conference.
So, at first glance, Aagard's bill seems unnecessary insofar as
religious gatherings are concerned. Religious protests just
haven't been a problem statewide. They've been pretty much
confined to Salt Lake City, and there's little need for statewide
law on the matter.
Likewise, there seems little reason to drag health care facilities
into the question. We're not seeing a lot of cases in Utah of
abortion protesters barricading clinics.
If anything, Aagard's bill is unnecessarily narrow. Why should the
state single out religious gatherings and health clinics for
special protection? A good law would protect all lawful gatherings
and activities. For example, a person attending a controversial
movie should not be impeded in getting to the theater entrance. A
person patronizing a controversial business should not be blocked.
A good state law would take all such things into account. It would
protect any citizen engaged in any lawful activity.
The text of Aagard's bill only raises questions and creates
ambiguities. For example, it says that "A person is guilty of
unlawfully interfering with passage to a health care facility or
place of worship if, within a radius of 100 feet from any entrance
door to a health care facility or place of worship, the person
intentionally or knowingly approaches within eight feet of another
person for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill;
displaying a sign or object; or engaging in oral protest,
education, or counseling with the other person."
Such language assumes that only the protester will be moving, when
in fact another person may be more responsible for closing the
gap. Can a protester standing still within 50 feet of entrance
legally hand a leaflet to a person who walks by? We don't know.
Aagard defines "place of worship" as a church, temple, synagogue,
mosque "or other building set apart primarily for the purpose of
worship in which religious services are held." This is anything
but clear in a state where religious services (including LDS
sacrament meetings) are regularly held in nursing homes and
private homes. Other denominations commonly meet in movie
theaters, senior citizen centers, schools or empty businesses.
Aagard's use of the passive voice -- "other building set apart
primarily for the purpose of worship" -- is not at all helpful and
introduces the unwelcome hand of the government in determining
what qualifies for protection:
Who is doing the "setting apart" of a place of worship? Can anyone
do this? How is it done? Can a theater be "set apart" temporarily
for worship services and qualify under Aagard's bill, then return
to its unqualified status after the religious gathering? For how
much time before and after a religious service will an attendee be
protected from an unwelcome protester?
An even more troubling question is this: Are only "official"
buildings of established churches recognized as legitimate places
of worship, while people gathering in common faith at other
locations are not protected? If so, Aagard's bill makes an
unacceptable distinction.
What if a person is on his way to a football stadium to hear an
evangelical preacher and is blocked by a protester? Or a person
heading to a backwoods revival or mountain prayer service? All
represent legitimate religious gatherings.
These are serious questions that go to the free expression of
religion in our society. All faiths deserve equal protection.
It might further be asked what qualifies as "worship" under
Aagard's bill: Worship is central to Aagard's concept, but he
doesn't bother to define it.
Is General Conference a worship service equivalent, say, to an LDS
sacrament meeting? We believe LDS leaders would say no. Sacraments
are not a part of General Conference, so it might be asked whether
there's a distinction between a "worship" service and a conference
at which religious themes are merely discussed.
Prayer opens and closes General Conference, but it does at the
Legislature, too, and we don't usually thing of that as a worship
service.
We think we've made our point. Salt Lake City's ordinance has
effectively dealt with LDS Conference protesters. Aagard's bill is
well-intentioned but unwise.
---
http://lastliberal.org
Free random & sequential signature changer http://holysmoke.org/sig
"Climbing K-2 or floating the Grand Canyon in an inner tube: There are
some things one would rather *have done* than *do*." -- Edward Abbey
.
|
|
| User: "FullaBulla Brush Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Bill aimed at stifling anti-LDS protesters is full of holes |
07 Mar 2005 08:49:50 PM |
|
|
Someone needs a h ug.
--
Join the Church of the
First Fulla Bulla
Best Babes in the world!
<desertphile@hot mail. com (Desertphile, American Patriot)> wrote in message
news:38sd6nF5sgclqU2@individual.net...
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/10309
The Daily Herald,
Feb. 14, 2005
www.harktheherald.com
Rep. Douglas Aagard, R-Kaysville, is pushing a new state law aimed
at restricting protesters at the LDS Church's General Conferences.
To make the bill seem broadly based, he went beyond restrictions
on protests at a "place of worship" and extended the rules to
protesters at a "health care facility. "
Based on laws limiting protests at abortion clinics, House Bill
131 would make it a Class-B misdemeanor to block access to any
health care facility or place of worship by creating a 100-foot
buffer zone around the entrance. Inside that zone, protesters
would be required to stay at least 8 feet away from another person
unless the person consents to receiving literature or hearing the
protester's message.
In addition to the criminal penalties, the bill would allow
lawsuits against protesters by those who are accosted.
Aagard said he's trying to do something about the so-called street
preachers who have become more strident in recent years at LDS
conferences. At a recent General Conference, two attendees were
arrested after getting into scuffles with protesters who were
desecrating LDS temple garments.
But Salt Lake City has already taken action to solve the problem
of protesters picking fights with conference attendees. In October
it designated protest zones, or boxes, in which protesters were
required to stand so as not to interfere with the free movement of
people entering and exiting the conference center.
And it seems to have worked well -- no October surprises. We'll
get another read on the effectiveness of Salt Lake's ordinance
during April's LDS conference.
So, at first glance, Aagard's bill seems unnecessary insofar as
religious gatherings are concerned. Religious protests just
haven't been a problem statewide. They've been pretty much
confined to Salt Lake City, and there's little need for statewide
law on the matter.
Likewise, there seems little reason to drag health care facilities
into the question. We're not seeing a lot of cases in Utah of
abortion protesters barricading clinics.
If anything, Aagard's bill is unnecessarily narrow. Why should the
state single out religious gatherings and health clinics for
special protection? A good law would protect all lawful gatherings
and activities. For example, a person attending a controversial
movie should not be impeded in getting to the theater entrance. A
person patronizing a controversial business should not be blocked.
A good state law would take all such things into account. It would
protect any citizen engaged in any lawful activity.
The text of Aagard's bill only raises questions and creates
ambiguities. For example, it says that "A person is guilty of
unlawfully interfering with passage to a health care facility or
place of worship if, within a radius of 100 feet from any entrance
door to a health care facility or place of worship, the person
intentionally or knowingly approaches within eight feet of another
person for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill;
displaying a sign or object; or engaging in oral protest,
education, or counseling with the other person."
Such language assumes that only the protester will be moving, when
in fact another person may be more responsible for closing the
gap. Can a protester standing still within 50 feet of entrance
legally hand a leaflet to a person who walks by? We don't know.
Aagard defines "place of worship" as a church, temple, synagogue,
mosque "or other building set apart primarily for the purpose of
worship in which religious services are held." This is anything
but clear in a state where religious services (including LDS
sacrament meetings) are regularly held in nursing homes and
private homes. Other denominations commonly meet in movie
theaters, senior citizen centers, schools or empty businesses.
Aagard's use of the passive voice -- "other building set apart
primarily for the purpose of worship" -- is not at all helpful and
introduces the unwelcome hand of the government in determining
what qualifies for protection:
Who is doing the "setting apart" of a place of worship? Can anyone
do this? How is it done? Can a theater be "set apart" temporarily
for worship services and qualify under Aagard's bill, then return
to its unqualified status after the religious gathering? For how
much time before and after a religious service will an attendee be
protected from an unwelcome protester?
An even more troubling question is this: Are only "official"
buildings of established churches recognized as legitimate places
of worship, while people gathering in common faith at other
locations are not protected? If so, Aagard's bill makes an
unacceptable distinction.
What if a person is on his way to a football stadium to hear an
evangelical preacher and is blocked by a protester? Or a person
heading to a backwoods revival or mountain prayer service? All
represent legitimate religious gatherings.
These are serious questions that go to the free expression of
religion in our society. All faiths deserve equal protection.
It might further be asked what qualifies as "worship" under
Aagard's bill: Worship is central to Aagard's concept, but he
doesn't bother to define it.
Is General Conference a worship service equivalent, say, to an LDS
sacrament meeting? We believe LDS leaders would say no. Sacraments
are not a part of General Conference, so it might be asked whether
there's a distinction between a "worship" service and a conference
at which religious themes are merely discussed.
Prayer opens and closes General Conference, but it does at the
Legislature, too, and we don't usually thing of that as a worship
service.
We think we've made our point. Salt Lake City's ordinance has
effectively dealt with LDS Conference protesters. Aagard's bill is
well-intentioned but unwise.
---
http://lastliberal.org
Free random & sequential signature changer http://holysmoke.org/sig
"Climbing K-2 or floating the Grand Canyon in an inner tube: There are
some things one would rather *have done* than *do*." -- Edward Abbey
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
