“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Background: On July 3rd the City of Inverness hosted an Independence Day celebration with entertainment and fireworks at the city-owned Liberty Park. It was designated as a public
event, starting at 6:30 PM.At least three local pastors with members of their congregation went to the park – arriving around 4 PM - to distribute tracts to those interested in taking them, with the intent of stopping when the formal activities began at 6:30. This was not a collaborative planned effort by the pastors – each went independently from the others.
A Sheriff’s deputy ordered one of the pastors - Pastor Sheppard, pastor of Citrus Baptist Missionary Church, to stop preaching and distributing tracts. Sheppard stated that it was a public event, public property, and that he was allowed by the Constitution of the United States to do so.
Contradictory advice was given by other deputies stationed in the park as to the legality of preaching and passing out tracts prior to the scheduled City activities, so Sheppard continued preaching and handing out tracts.
The deputy came by later and again ordered him to stop, threatening arrest for trespassing, and then ordered him out of the park. Later he ordered the pastor’s wife and 5 children (ages between 1 and 8) from the park for creating what he termed “a religious compound” (a child’s wagon with two Scripture verses on it) – perhaps a reference to the Branch Dividians?
Sheppard left, and began preaching and distributing tracts on the public right-of-way outside of the park. The deputy came again and ordered the pastor to stop. Sheppard refused, citing his Constitutional rights, pointing that he was outside of the park, on a public right-of-way. The deputy left, and later brought back the Park Director, who told the pastor that he could not preach or distribute tracts in the park – it was against a city ordinance. Pastor Sheppard pointed out again that he was no longer in the park, but on a public right-of-way, and that the park director’s stance was unconstitutional.
Another pastor – Pastor Stine of Bethel Baptist Church - arrived, and was informed that he could not preach or distribute tracts in the park either. Stine had been doing this at the Independence Day event for several years, and was surprised at the restriction. He also wound up distributing tracts outside of the park.
The tracts were simply offered to people and not forced upon them, and all preaching was done by voice only, without the assistance of any electronic amplifiers.
The Process:
The issue was brought before the Inverness City Council at their regularly scheduled meeting July 21st. Their agenda provided time for Sheppard to speak, and contains letters between Sheppard and the Inverness city manager, Frank DiGiovanni, requesting time to address the City Council, as well as a letter from a law firm reiterating the legal protections found under the First Amendment.
Over seventy people attended the meeting – the majority to provide support for the pastor’s cause. Pastor Sheppard presented his case, including a listing of some city ordinances that were in conflict with county, state, and federal law. He also pointed out that the Sheriff’s Department had never harassed him before, but that his concern was that there was inconsistency in the laws of the city affecting public speaking, as well as a lack of training to so officers could provide a consistent answer to question relating to citizen rights.Sheppard pointed out the incongruousness of the issue: the restriction of his rights occurred at Liberty Park, celebrating Independence Day.
The city attorney commented that some of the ordinances were of ‘dubious constitutionality’ and that he and the city manager planned to rewrite the city code. The Council was attentive and supportive in its statements – but deferred any decisions until the codes are rewritten.
The Concern:
They are two-fold:
One: What is the concern of the citizenry for maintaining their rights? The quote by Martin Niemoller, the pastor of a Protestant congregation in Germany who was imprisoned in a concentration camp during the reign of Adolf Hitler, comes to mind:
They came after the Jews,
But I was not a Jew, so I did not object.
Then they came after the Catholics,
But I was not a Catholic, so I did not object.
Then they came after the Trade Unionists,
But I was not a Trade Unionist, so I did not object.
Then they came after me,
And there was no one left to object.
While the clear majority of those at the City Council meeting were concerned and supportive, two thoughts come to mind:
-One lady – after Pastor Sheppard finished speaking and another gentleman asked if he could address the Council on the issue – whispered to her husband ‘Isn’t this ever going to end’, then proceeded to focus her attention on a grocery sales receipt for the next ten minutes. She was attending the City Council meeting for another agenda item.
-Where were the other pastors, deacons, church members of the area? Is this not a concern of theirs as well? Yet only two or three pastors came, and perhaps forty church members.
Two: Unlimited and unregulated power for any agency will result in the loss of rights and legal protection. I’m a strong supporter of law-enforcement and the work our officers do – but they are not always right, and some of them need to recognize that fact. Stubbornness, prejudice, and rash action took place over consideration of the rights and intent of the law – by those who should be enforcing it. My hat is off to the City Council for their attention and thoughts on the matter, and to the city attorney for his honest evaluation of the pertinent city ordinances and code, and to pastors Sheppard and Stine - as well as the other speakers - who were willing to defend their rights.
The story isn’t finished yet, and a final resolution hasn’t been reached. Only time will tell the final direction that this Civics in Action lesson will take.
Hopefully everyone will learn about the Constitution a little better than the person in this video clip.
As John Adams stated:
"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”
Essential Question: How can a local incident like this be used to teach civic rights and responsibilities to our students?
PHOTO RESOURCE:
-
1 comment:
Interestingly cases such as these come up more often that we'd care to admit!
Of the first part, Fox News aired a dash-cam of four police officers in collusion changing a story to fit their 'agenda.'
Of the second part, the constant battle over ownership really needs to be addressed. So what is ownership?
The LGBT community is going nutz about where the can or cannot have their 'commitment cermonies' inasmuch as the church v. state argument works for them. Unless the property is privately owned then it is fair game to those who want to be married on site.
Any tax-paying dollars (and delete if you like) throws this type of situation into the unrelenting quagmire of church v. state. As you know only too well, the real meaning of Th. Jefferson's letter to those at Danbury had absolutely nothing to do with church v. state from where all of this Uber-rhetoric comes from.
To answer the question from your writing: This is a real 'teachable moment' and students of any age should be able to understand the message you wrote. In the past I've always used the 'locker searches' on school property as a case of rights; meaning, does the school or police department have the right to search a student's property?
Great post!!
jps
Post a Comment