Thursday, September 29, 2011
Commemorate 9/11 on campus? Not without a permit!
www.thefire.org
Foundation for individual rights in education
Commemorate 9/11 on campus? Not without a permit!September 13, 2011
by Robert Shibley
The Daily Caller
In the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, one of the few places it was controversial to display the American flag — a symbol of unity in that terrifying time — was on America’s college campuses.
Ten years later, it still is.
Last Friday, three college conservatives at Northern Arizona University (NAU) gathered in the student union to pass out small American flags in remembrance of 9/11. They were indoors, against the wall of a large room, because it was raining outside. Wisely, they also brought a video camera.
It wasn’t long before an administrator approached them and told them to go outside, in the rain, because they weren’t in an "approved vendor space." (They weren’t selling anything.) The students refused.
The first administrator was followed by another administrator, who told the students that the university could use "time, place and manner" rules to determine that they were not allowed to pass out flags there without a permit. This administrator was followed by yet another administrator who claimed that the First Amendment meant "free speech in a designated time, place, and manner."
That’s a reading of the First Amendment that only a bureaucrat could love. The Supreme Court has indeed determined that the government may enforce time, place and manner restrictions on expression, but these restrictions must be reasonable, content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and must leave open ample alternative means of communication. So when the expression consists of a couple of people handing out flags while standing against the wall of a large room, one wonders what "governmental interest" is involved in telling students they can’t do so.
The fourth administrator to confront the students repeated "time, place and manner" four times when the students challenged her on how the university could stop its own students from standing around and passing out flags. After that, NAU called the cops. A police officer (who looked like she’d rather be somewhere else) came and took the names of the two remaining participants, saying that it wasn’t a legal matter but a university code of conduct matter.
Until Monday evening, when NAU most likely realized how bad punishing people for this was going to look, the students faced charges of "failure to comply with a university official" and "interfering with university activities." The first charge only made sense if "Hey, you two, stop passing out flags to commemorate 9/11" is the sort of order you think university officials should be giving, while the second only made sense if "not observing the anniversary of 9/11" counts as a university activity.
NAU requires that any group wishing to engage in expressive activity get a permit from the Office of Student Life before doing so. This is justifiable when a group is planning a giant march on campus. But can the government really justify demanding a permit in order to stand around handing out flags? If, God forbid, there should be another terrorist attack on America, is NAU planning to use this policy to make sure any impromptu vigils or demonstrations are swiftly broken up?
At NAU, hanging around the student union for no reason requires no permit. Handing out American flags while doing so results in having no less than five different government employees tell you to stop. And while it’s nice that NAU has now dropped its charges against the students, the fact remains that the anniversary of 9/11 has passed, and if NAU’s goal was to stop this commemoration, it certainly succeeded.
It would be nice to rule out political motives on the part of NAU, but it wouldn’t be very reasonable. After September 11, 2001, campuses racked up a terrible record of censorship. At Lehigh University, Central Michigan University and College of the Holy Cross, American flag displays were taken down. Students and faculty members at San Diego State University, Penn State University and Johns Hopkins University were all chastised or punished for strongly denouncing the terrorist attacks or supporting a military response to them.
Either NAU decided it wanted to continue this shameful tradition, or it is so over-regulated and hyper-bureaucratized that it couldn’t see that making "handing out flags without a permit" a campus crime goes against everything a university stands for. Colleges are supposed to be the ultimate "free speech zones" in our free society. It’s sad to see that 10 years after we were attacked at least partly because we are a free society, Northern Arizona University has failed to understand what such a society is all about.
Foundation for individual rights in education
Commemorate 9/11 on campus? Not without a permit!September 13, 2011
by Robert Shibley
The Daily Caller
In the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, one of the few places it was controversial to display the American flag — a symbol of unity in that terrifying time — was on America’s college campuses.
Ten years later, it still is.
Last Friday, three college conservatives at Northern Arizona University (NAU) gathered in the student union to pass out small American flags in remembrance of 9/11. They were indoors, against the wall of a large room, because it was raining outside. Wisely, they also brought a video camera.
It wasn’t long before an administrator approached them and told them to go outside, in the rain, because they weren’t in an "approved vendor space." (They weren’t selling anything.) The students refused.
The first administrator was followed by another administrator, who told the students that the university could use "time, place and manner" rules to determine that they were not allowed to pass out flags there without a permit. This administrator was followed by yet another administrator who claimed that the First Amendment meant "free speech in a designated time, place, and manner."
That’s a reading of the First Amendment that only a bureaucrat could love. The Supreme Court has indeed determined that the government may enforce time, place and manner restrictions on expression, but these restrictions must be reasonable, content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and must leave open ample alternative means of communication. So when the expression consists of a couple of people handing out flags while standing against the wall of a large room, one wonders what "governmental interest" is involved in telling students they can’t do so.
The fourth administrator to confront the students repeated "time, place and manner" four times when the students challenged her on how the university could stop its own students from standing around and passing out flags. After that, NAU called the cops. A police officer (who looked like she’d rather be somewhere else) came and took the names of the two remaining participants, saying that it wasn’t a legal matter but a university code of conduct matter.
Until Monday evening, when NAU most likely realized how bad punishing people for this was going to look, the students faced charges of "failure to comply with a university official" and "interfering with university activities." The first charge only made sense if "Hey, you two, stop passing out flags to commemorate 9/11" is the sort of order you think university officials should be giving, while the second only made sense if "not observing the anniversary of 9/11" counts as a university activity.
NAU requires that any group wishing to engage in expressive activity get a permit from the Office of Student Life before doing so. This is justifiable when a group is planning a giant march on campus. But can the government really justify demanding a permit in order to stand around handing out flags? If, God forbid, there should be another terrorist attack on America, is NAU planning to use this policy to make sure any impromptu vigils or demonstrations are swiftly broken up?
At NAU, hanging around the student union for no reason requires no permit. Handing out American flags while doing so results in having no less than five different government employees tell you to stop. And while it’s nice that NAU has now dropped its charges against the students, the fact remains that the anniversary of 9/11 has passed, and if NAU’s goal was to stop this commemoration, it certainly succeeded.
It would be nice to rule out political motives on the part of NAU, but it wouldn’t be very reasonable. After September 11, 2001, campuses racked up a terrible record of censorship. At Lehigh University, Central Michigan University and College of the Holy Cross, American flag displays were taken down. Students and faculty members at San Diego State University, Penn State University and Johns Hopkins University were all chastised or punished for strongly denouncing the terrorist attacks or supporting a military response to them.
Either NAU decided it wanted to continue this shameful tradition, or it is so over-regulated and hyper-bureaucratized that it couldn’t see that making "handing out flags without a permit" a campus crime goes against everything a university stands for. Colleges are supposed to be the ultimate "free speech zones" in our free society. It’s sad to see that 10 years after we were attacked at least partly because we are a free society, Northern Arizona University has failed to understand what such a society is all about.
Monday, September 26, 2011
FORREST GUMP GOES TO HEAVEN
FORREST GUMP GOES TO HEAVEN
The day finally arrived. Forrest Gump dies and goes to Heaven.
He is at the Pearly Gates, met by St. Peter himself.
However, the gates are closed,and Forrest approaches the gatekeeper.
St. Peter said, 'Well, Forrest,it is certainly good to see you.
We have heard a lot about you.
I must tell you, though, that the place is filling up fast, and we
have been administering an entrance examination for everyone.
The test is short, but you have topass it before you can get into Heaven.'
Forrest responds, 'It sure is good to be here, St. Peter, sir.
But nobody ever told me about any entranceexam.
I sure hope that the test ain't too hard.
Life was a big enough testas it was.'
St.. Peter continued, 'Yes, I know, Forrest, but the test is only
three questions.
First:What two days of the weekbegin with the letter T?
Second:How many seconds are there in a year?
Third:What is God's first name?'
Forrest leaves to think the questions over.
He returns the next day and sees St. Peter, who waves him up, and says,
'Now that you have had a chance to think the questions over,tell me
your answers.'
Forrest replied, 'Well, thefirst one -- which two days in the week
begins with the letter 'T'?Shucks, that one is easy. That would be
Today and Tomorrow..'
The Saint's eyes opened wide andhe exclaimed, 'Forrest, that is not
what I was thinking,
but you dohave a point, and I guess I did not specify, so I will give
you credit for that answer.
How about the next one?' asked St. Peter.
'How many seconds in a year?Now that one is harder,' replied Forrest,
'but I thunk and thunk aboutthat, and I guess the only answer can be
twelve.'
Astounded, St. Peter said, 'Twelve?Twelve? Forrest, how in Heaven's
name could you come up with twelve seconds in a year?'
Forrest replied, 'Shucks, there'sgot to be twelve: January 2nd,
February 2nd, March 2nd... '
'Hold it,' interrupts St. Peter.
'I see where you are going with this, and I see your point, though
that was not quite what I had in mind....but I will have to giveyou
credit for that one, too.
Let us go on with the third and final question.
Can you tell me God's first name'?
'Sure,' Forrest replied,'it's Andy.'
'Andy?' exclaimed an exasperatedand frustrated St Peter.
'Ok, I can understand how youcame up with your answers to my first two
questions,
but just how in theworld did you come up with the name Andy as the
first name of God?'
'Shucks, that was the easiest one of all,' Forrest replied.
'I learnt it from the song,ANDY WALKS WITH ME,ANDY TALKS WITH ME,ANDY
TELLS ME I AM HIS OWN.'
St. Peter opened the Pearly Gates,and said: 'Run, Forrest, run.'
Lord, Give me a sense of humor.Give me the ability to appreciate a
clean joke,To get some humor out of life,And to pass it on to other
folks !
Bob Gaylord
The day finally arrived. Forrest Gump dies and goes to Heaven.
He is at the Pearly Gates, met by St. Peter himself.
However, the gates are closed,and Forrest approaches the gatekeeper.
St. Peter said, 'Well, Forrest,it is certainly good to see you.
We have heard a lot about you.
I must tell you, though, that the place is filling up fast, and we
have been administering an entrance examination for everyone.
The test is short, but you have topass it before you can get into Heaven.'
Forrest responds, 'It sure is good to be here, St. Peter, sir.
But nobody ever told me about any entranceexam.
I sure hope that the test ain't too hard.
Life was a big enough testas it was.'
St.. Peter continued, 'Yes, I know, Forrest, but the test is only
three questions.
First:What two days of the weekbegin with the letter T?
Second:How many seconds are there in a year?
Third:What is God's first name?'
Forrest leaves to think the questions over.
He returns the next day and sees St. Peter, who waves him up, and says,
'Now that you have had a chance to think the questions over,tell me
your answers.'
Forrest replied, 'Well, thefirst one -- which two days in the week
begins with the letter 'T'?Shucks, that one is easy. That would be
Today and Tomorrow..'
The Saint's eyes opened wide andhe exclaimed, 'Forrest, that is not
what I was thinking,
but you dohave a point, and I guess I did not specify, so I will give
you credit for that answer.
How about the next one?' asked St. Peter.
'How many seconds in a year?Now that one is harder,' replied Forrest,
'but I thunk and thunk aboutthat, and I guess the only answer can be
twelve.'
Astounded, St. Peter said, 'Twelve?Twelve? Forrest, how in Heaven's
name could you come up with twelve seconds in a year?'
Forrest replied, 'Shucks, there'sgot to be twelve: January 2nd,
February 2nd, March 2nd... '
'Hold it,' interrupts St. Peter.
'I see where you are going with this, and I see your point, though
that was not quite what I had in mind....but I will have to giveyou
credit for that one, too.
Let us go on with the third and final question.
Can you tell me God's first name'?
'Sure,' Forrest replied,'it's Andy.'
'Andy?' exclaimed an exasperatedand frustrated St Peter.
'Ok, I can understand how youcame up with your answers to my first two
questions,
but just how in theworld did you come up with the name Andy as the
first name of God?'
'Shucks, that was the easiest one of all,' Forrest replied.
'I learnt it from the song,ANDY WALKS WITH ME,ANDY TALKS WITH ME,ANDY
TELLS ME I AM HIS OWN.'
St. Peter opened the Pearly Gates,and said: 'Run, Forrest, run.'
Lord, Give me a sense of humor.Give me the ability to appreciate a
clean joke,To get some humor out of life,And to pass it on to other
folks !
Bob Gaylord
City Fines Couple for Hosting Bible Studies Without a Permit
christianitytoday.com by Morgan Feddes posted 9/23/2011 at 4:23PM
City Fines Couple for Hosting Bible Studies Without a Permit
Officials say the meetings violate residential use policies.
The city of San Juan Capistrano, California, has fined a family for holding regular Bible studies in their home.
Chuck and Stephanie Fromm, who have been hosting Bible studies and other gatherings in their home since 1994, were cited for violating a municipal code which requires a conditional use permit (CUP) for religious, fraternal, or nonprofit organizations that meet in residential areas. The Fromms were fined twice for a total of $300. When they appealed to the city, they were informed that the violations would be upheld and that any future meetings without a CUP would face a fine of $500 each.
The code in question prohibits such groups of three or more people meeting without a CUP, said Chuck Fromm, who is the former president of Maranatha! Music and co-founder and editor of Worship Leader magazine.
"The law says any nonprofit or fraternal organization," he said. "If I'm having five guys over to watch Sunday football every week, that's a regular meeting of three or more people that would require a [CUP]. Now, have they cited anybody for that? No, they're citing a religious meeting."
The Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), who is now representing the Fromms, plans to fight to have the city apologize to the Fromms and refund their money, PJI president Brad Dacus said. The organization also hopes to have the policy revised.
"No family in America should ever have to worry about a local government fining them simply for meeting with their friends and family in their own home to read the Bible or pray together," Dacus said. "The city is demanding that this family has to pay money to the city in order not even to have a Bible study, but in order just to seek permission from the city to be able to have a Bible study. That is totalitarian, it is a clear breach of fundamental civil liberties, and we at [PJI] intend to halt it in its tracks."
San Juan Capistrano issued a quote from city attorney Omar Sandoval stating that "the City of San Juan Capistrano does not prohibit home Bible studies. The issue with the Fromm case involves the question of when a property developed for residential use has been transformed into a place of public assembly. … The Fromm case further involves regular meetings on Sunday mornings and Thursday afternoons with up to 50 people, with impacts on the residential neighborhood on street access and parking."
However, Fromm said that the larger group meetings take place at the local clubhouse, a facility owned by all the residents in the area. The complex has seating for more than 100 people and has its own parking lot, Fromm said. According to a timeline of events he posted on his blog, the group did meet in the Fromm home for nearly a year while the clubhouse was being renovated, but it has moved back to meeting in the clubhouse in July. Currently, the Fromms plan to appeal the violation to the Orange County Superior Court in early October. There are also plans to file a case with the federal courts, Fromm said.
Since the law is meant for general applicability, the success of the case in court will depend whether or not it can be proven that the city was singling out religious groups, said Alan Brownstein, professor of law at the UC Davis School of Law. "Unless you can show that religion is being singled out for discriminatory or disfavored treatment, you don't have a free exercise claim anymore," he said.
In the meantime, Fromm and his wife are continuing to host Bible studies in their home. "They said they're going to cite us $500 for every meeting," he said. "We're [saying], 'Okay, cite us.'"
This is not the first time home Bible studies have been cited or barred in the recent past. In April 2009, San Diego county officials issued a warning to David and Mary Jones for hosting a weekly Bible study in their home without a permit for religious assembly; the county rescinded the warning in June of that year. In November of that year, Joe Sutherland of Gilbert, Arizona, was given a cease-and-desist order for church meetings in his home because it violated the city’s zoning code. The city council revised the code the following March to allow the meetings.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)