As long as the government wasn't funding the thing, and as long as the people at the senior center had to go out of their way to partake in the class, and as long as a non-Christian request would have the same opportunity, I don't have any issues with it.

I'm interested in some things though...if the state has no ability to voluntarily filter something like this out, do they have the ability to filter *anything* out?  By this reasoning I'd think someone could go in with a class about voodoo sex rituals and they'd be protected, which seems a bit odd to me.

The idea that the senior center would object to any 'sectarian' classes seems very reasonable to me, and if the court is saying that isn't a possibility then how do they keep this from becoming a preach-a-thon?  I guess maybe that doesn't matter though, as long as any religion has the ability to do so.

Well, if I had my druthers, there would be no religion allowed on government property. However, the city has opened the doors of those facilities for some limited amount of religion and that bring the question of how much should be allowed. Basically, where shall the line be drawn?

This is going to be a problem any time it comes up because the first amendment has not one but three purposes. The case that the church made was not freedom of religion but rather freedom of speech. In all honesty, freedom of speech does go to the idea that the government should not be in the business of deciding what messages are legitimate.

Another problem here is that the case made by the city was really weak. It rests on three grounds, none of which is actually good enough to make a case for what they did.

First, that they have a responsibility to not be involved in religious expression. Well great but there is a problem here, in that the Supreme court has ruled on this a few times over the years and the duty of the city in this case is to remain neutral. Not to decide where that particular line is to be drawn.

Second, that the government needs to have this oddly inconsistent policy in order to comply with the federal law that makes the funding they are using available. A laudable goal to be sure but not one that can shield them from constitutional scrutiny. As it stands, by restricting religious expression, they are holding an opinion on a specific matter which they are not permitted to hold. If they want to provide a center for, well, any type of discussion, they can say whatever they want to but they can't get in the business of deciding what opinions are valid.

Third, that they have a duty to protect senior citizens as a group which is vulnerable. A laudable goal here as well but not one for which they have statutory authority. Sure, if some con man wanted to do a seminar on the insurance contracts he was selling with no intention to ever pay off any claim, the city could intervene there. But then, said con man could not legally sell those contracts over the phone or by mail either.

On the other hand, to say that senior citizens are automatically vulnerable to religion is patently absurd. Sure, they may well be vulnerable but the government does not have a duty to protect people from things that are not actually against the law. Then too, just because someone is old does not mean that they are stupid. This is a senior center that has a fascinating array of activities from more than a dozen separate computer clubs through ham radio an on to basket weaving. If someone is able to handle such activities, I would bet that they are able to handle some religious whack job trying to hand out bibles.

Also, why is the AARP newsletter discussing a fifteen year old case like it just happened last week? I know that much because I found the case file on google by just googling the name of the church. Honestly, I was hoping to find the church web site to see just what manner of whack job this guy is. Sadly, no luck there.

I honestly think it was okay i.e. I agree with the court of appeals, as long as any kind of religious or secular group could present at the senior center. The senior center itself was not promoting an establishment of religion, merely allowing the pastor to use its facilities. I view this as similar to my university, which does not condone any religious group, but allows everyone to form clubs and groups and reserve rooms for meetings. Also, viewing the movie was optional, so I don't see this as much "proselytizing."

If it's ruled that the first amendment overrides this "Older Americans Act," then it should clearly be repealed to prevent cities from losing federal funding.

I hear you on that.

Locally, we have a soup kitchen run by the council of churches and synagogues. That is fine enough. They should be providing such services to the community.

That being said, once in a while, a group of volunteers will show who think that they are there for more important things than to get food into people who cannot afford to feed themselves. Then what happens is beyond the pale in my book.

People will be let into the dining area and seated. But before the meal is served, someone will come out to lead everyone in prayer. Occasionally, people will also distribute crosses and/or bibles. This will happen as a thing that must be done if one wants to get food.

Despite the name of the sponsoring group, no temple has ever required that people cut off their foreskin in order to get fed. But let the Christians get involved and the message all too readily becomes: “Before we feed you, you need to accept Christ into your heart”.