Court rules against prayer sessions

[question everything]

Court rules against prayer sessions

SAN FRANCISCO – The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding a lower court judge and Tehama County authorities, said Daniel Berry, a Department of Social Services employment counselor who is a self-described evangelical Christian, did not have the right to hold prayer sessions in the agency's conference room and to display religious signs in his cubicle, which was frequented by clients.

Associated Press

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060502/news_1n2region.html (and scroll down)

[benny05]

1. Hey Dude, the UC compensation is equally important here

Good use of taxpayer money for education corrupted is just important as the Prayer Sessions stuff. I thank you for this article on both accounts.

[ShockediSay]

2. This is how the Talibanskis got

started

[Journeyman]

3. I wonder what signs were deemed inappropriate . . .

and how much of a religious display someone may have in their cubicle. Can a Christian wear a cross or a Jew a yarmulke? If such personal wear is acceptable, can you have a personal desk calendar -- say a daily Farside or Dilbert cartoon, or a "This Day in History." And if you can have that, where does the line get drawn? At one point does personal expression become public nuisance?

Here's a bit more I found on the web:

Berry v. Department of Social Services, 04-15566 (9th Cir., May 1, 2006)

Daniel Berry is an evangelical Christian who works as a welfare counselor for the Tehama County Department of Social Services. As part of his duties, Berry often counsels clients in his cubicle. After his employer objected to his cubicle decor (which included a Bible and a sign reading "Happy Birthday Jesus") and refused to allow him to conduct voluntary prayer meetings in a conference room, Berry sued for religious discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Ninth Circuit affirms. The Court congratulates the County for striking the right balance between an employee’s religious rights and the public agency’s need to avoid the appearance of endorsing religion.

http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/


So I'm still curious as to the "tipping point" when display becomes nuisance. Certainly, a sign declaring faith goes beyond any common-sense line, but how was The Bible displayed that it was deemed unacceptable. Did he have it on a library stand, with track lighting softly illuminating it from behind? Or was it on a bookshelf, or face up on his desk?

Well, probably never learn what this whackjob's situation was -- unless, of course, he appeals, in which case we may all be subject to his rants one day on the SCOTUS steps.

[Tesha]

4. More than likely, the Bible was displayed...

> but how was The Bible displayed that it was deemed unacceptable.

More than likely, the Bible was displayed a few inches under the clients'
noses, with Daniel pointing out the passages revelent to the clients's
particular (non-religious) problem.

Tesha