|
PROTECTION OF CHURCHES
AND WORSHIP FROM DISTURBANCES Outline: A. General Principles B. California Law: 1.
Penal Code §302 2. Case Law A.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES American
Civil Church Law by Carl Zollmann: “Religious freedom is
the crown jewel in the rich diadem of
American liberties. The
federal and
state constitutions protect the American citizen from any interference
with his
rights of consciousness on the part of the federal or state governments
respectively. Under
this protection he
may entertain any opinion whatsoever as to his relation with his God,
provided
he does not allow his views to break out into vicious and unlawful
action. Subject to
this one necessary restraint, he
may think, reason and argue as he pleases, and may belong to any church
or to
none at all without let or hindrance on the part of the government. In the great battle of
thought and action
between the various denominations, both the Nation and the States
maintain a
strict and absolute neutrality. This neutrality, however, does
not spell indifference…Both
the State and United States governments…neutrality is
therefore a friendly
neutrality toward all the contending forces.
No difficulties are thrown in the way of any of them. None are tolerated, none
established, but all
are protected… ….[P]erhaps the most
striking illustration of this friendly
attitude is enforced by the laws against disturbing religious
meetings…Without
such security the important provisions in the constitutions which
guarantee the
free enjoyment of religious principles and worship to every person
would become
nugatory [citations omitted]. Without freedom to assemble and worship
God
according to the dictates of one’s own conscience religious
liberty would be
but a shadow without a substance…While,
therefore, no one is compelled to attend, or come near to, any church
meeting,
if he does attend or come near it, it becomes his duty to conduct
himself with
decorum and respect [citations omitted]. If he refuses to do so it
becomes incumbent
on the state to punish him, since his acts do not only
disturb a lawful
meeting but tend to destroy the public morals and excite the breach of
peace…
[citations omitted]” American Civil
Church Law, p. 285-286.
B.
CALIFORNIA LAW 1. Penal Code Section 302 “(a) Every
person who
intentionally disturbs or disquiets any assemblage of people met for
religious
worship at a tax-exempt place of worship, by profane discourse, rude or
indecent behavior, or by any unnecessary noise, either within the place
where
the meeting is held, or so near it as to disturb the order and
solemnity of the
meeting, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not
exceeding one
thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for a
period not
exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. California Penal Code
§302 2. Case
Law People
v. Cruz (1972) 25 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1: In consolidated cases, the
appellant defendants were
convicted of willful disturbance of a religious assemblage due to their
rude
behavior and unnecessary noise, a violation of California Penal Code
§302 and
other related crimes. On appeal, the appeals court upheld the
convictions and
held that, under the facts of these cases, Section 302 was not
unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Church of Christ in Hollywood v. Superior Court (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 1244: The California appellate court
directed trial court to issue
a restraining order against disgruntled former church member whose
membership
was terminated because of the way in which she harassed church
leadership and
members on the church premises. Quoting
Penal Code Section
302, the appellate court held that the
former member’s “right
of free speech does not trump the Church's right to prohibit her
disruptive
conduct on its property.”
" …certain forms of
conduct mixed with speech may be
regulated or prohibited. The most classic of these was pointed out long
ago by
Mr. Justice Holmes: ''The most stringent protection of free speech
would
not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a
panic.' . . . A man may be punished for encouraging the commission of a
crime,
. . . or for uttering 'fighting words,' . . . . These authorities
make it clear . . . that 'it has never been deemed an abridgment of
freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely
because
the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means
of
language, either spoken, written, or printed.' . . . " |